prompt
stringlengths 541
480k
| keywords
stringlengths 1
507
| response
stringlengths 1
10k
|
|---|---|---|
News article:
Former NFL defensive lineman Chris Smith has died at 31 Former NFL star Chris Smith has died, his agent announced on Twitter, external. He was 31. Smith, who was a former defensive lineman for the Cleveland Browns, spent eight years in the NFL and played for multiple teams including the Jacksonville Jaguars, the Cincinnati Bengals and the Las Vegas Raiders. His cause of death was not immediately known. On social media, tributes poured in for the former player. "Chris was one of the kindest people, team-mates and friends we've had in our organisation," the Browns team wrote on Twitter. Smith began his NFL career in 2014 when he was drafted by the Jacksonville Jaguars as a defensive lineman. But his personal life was marred by tragedy. In 2019, his girlfriend Petara Cordero was killed in a car accident just weeks after giving birth to their child. Chris Smith played for multiple teams in the NFL including the Cleveland Browns Tony Khan, son of Jacksonville Jaguars owner Shahid Khan, described Smith, external as a "great team-mate and friend". "He suffered a tragic loss," he wrote on Twitter. "I hope they are reunited in Heaven." Smith spent three seasons with the Jaguars before going on to play for the Cincinnati Bengals and the Cleveland Browns. But before he joined the NFL, he was a hometown hero and star of his North Carolina high school football team, according to a local newspaper. "He had been the ultimate give-back guy and had been a generous donor to local schools and projects," the Salisbury Post wrote in an obituary, external. Police officer suspended after airport kicking video Ukraine thrown into war's bleak future as drones open new battlefront Aniston hits back at 'childless' remark by Trump's VP pick Charli XCX and Beth Gibbons up for Mercury Prize A visual guide to the Olympics Could you keep up with Hodgkinson's 800m pace? Biden sidesteps hard truths in first speech since quitting race Can Deadpool and Wolverine spark Marvel's revival? Would-be reality TV contestants 'not looking real' I remortgaged my house to move into a shipping container The Charlotte Dujardin case explained Namibia turns the visa tables on Western nations Breaking the golden rule of train travel Who will âsashay awayâ first? The final landing at Nicosia Airport The victims 'still fight for justice' © 2024 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
User comment:
|
Cause of death
|
"His cause of death was not immediately known"
pretty sure that is what most people are interested in
|
News article:
Some of Fox News' most prominent personalities are expected to testify in the Dominion lawsuit trial Testimony in the highly anticipated defamation trial pitting Dominion Voting Systems against Fox News is set to start - and jurors may be seeing a few familiar faces. Dominion, a voting technology company, is suing Fox for $1.6bn (£1.29bn) in damages, claiming that the TV network knowingly spread falsehoods about the firm's role in the 2020 US election that ousted Donald Trump from the White House. Over the course of the trial, jurors are likely to hear from billionaire Fox owner Rupert Murdoch and immensely popular - and controversial - TV host Tucker Carlson, among an array of other executives and well-known on-air personalities. Jurors will be asked to determine whether Fox showed "actual malice" by knowingly and willingly reporting things that were untrue and potentially damaging for the voting machine maker. Fox denies the claims. In a statement sent to the BBC, the company said the lawsuit "is a political crusade in search of financial windfall" and said Dominion "has pushed irrelevant and misleading information to generate headlines". Here's what we know about some of the key players in the case and how they fit in. Dominion claims that Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch played a key editorial role at Fox News As the trial begins, all eyes will be on Fox Corporation's 91-year-old co-chairman and his son Lachlan, who is the co-chairman and CEO. In the lawsuit, Dominion claims that the two Murdochs held ultimate editorial responsibility during the elections, and allowed falsehoods about Dominion to be spread despite knowing they were untrue. Court documents filed by Dominion after a deposition of the elder Mr Murdoch revealed that he did not believe many of the theories being "endorsed" by some Fox commentators. The big questions in $1.6bn lawsuit against Fox Judge rebukes Fox News ahead of defamation trial In retrospect, he said, he would have liked the company to be "stronger in denouncing it". He also said that he "could have" prevented conspiracy-prone guests from appearing on-air, but did not. Tucker Carlson was privately dismissive of many of the claims against Dominion In the aftermath of the 2020 election, the now 53-year-old TV host broadcast more than 20 episodes of his show that Dominion's lawsuit claims were defamatory. Off-camera, however, Mr Carlson repeatedly dismissed the claims, which he called "absurd" and "insane", according to communications revealed in court documents. Additionally, while he was publicly a vocal supporter of Donald Trump's claims of fraud in the 2020 election, court documents show that he said he hated the former President "passionately" and that he "can't wait" to ignore him. Dominion's lawyers are likely to focus on these inconsistencies in their bid to prove the "actual malice" needed for a successful defamation case. Guests on Sean Hannity's show repeated baseless claims about Dominion Another TV star expected on the stand is Sean Hannity, the host of the popular and his self-titled "Hannity" show on Fox. In court documents, Dominion's lawyers have specifically singled out an episode of the show that aired on 30 November, 2020 in which Mr Hannity had Sidney Powell, a former Trump lawyer, as guest. During the episode, Ms Powell repeated baseless conspiracy theories about Dominion's role in the election. Mr Hannity later said in a deposition that he did not believe Ms Powell's claims "for one second", despite having brought her on his show. Ms Powell, for his part, features heavily in the lawsuit and is among one of three people who repeatedly repeated conspiracy theories on Fox shows, including Mr Hannity's, Mr Carlson's and others. Fox defamation trial delayed amid settlement talks Internal communications show that Fox News employees repeatedly told each other they did not believe many of the allegations. Former House Speaker Paul Ryan became a member of Fox Corporation's Board in 2019 Mr Ryan, 53, served as Speaker of the House of Representatives from 2015 to 2019. In March 2019, he joined the board of the Fox Corporation. According to court documents filed by Dominion, Mr Ryan sent a message to Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch calling for "solid pushback" against outlandish claims in the wake of the 2020 election. "I think we are entering a truly bizarre phase of this where he has actually convinced himself of this farce and will do more bizarre things to delegitimize the election," he said, adding that he saw the election as an "inflection point" for the network. Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott expressed concern that the network would lose viewers after calling Arizona in Biden's favour Among the top Fox executives expected to testify is Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott. Dominion's court filings single her out as ultimately being "responsible for the content of the shows" on the network, with the "authority to direct shows to not host certain guests or broadcast certain content". On 9 November 2020 - just days after the election - Ms Scott e-mailed Rupert Murdoch to stress upon him the importance of keeping an audience "who loves and trusts" the network, particularly after Fox's decision to call the state of Arizona in Joe Biden's favour. That call, she said, had been "damaging", but could be addressed by an effort to "highlight our stars and plant flags letting the viewers know we hear them, and respect them". Additionally, Dominion's court filings show that the firm alerted Ms Scott, along with several other top Fox executives, that they were airing "verifiably wrong information". Experts have noted that a significant part of Dominion's case will be to show that Fox was repeatedly warned about the falsehoods being shared on-air. The big questions in $1.6bn lawsuit against Fox Judge rebukes Fox News ahead of defamation trial Fox defamation trial delayed amid settlement talks Police officer suspended after airport kicking video Ukraine thrown into war's bleak future as drones open new battlefront Aniston hits back at 'childless' remark by Trump's VP pick Charli XCX and Beth Gibbons up for Mercury Prize A visual guide to the Olympics Could you keep up with Hodgkinson's 800m pace? Biden sidesteps hard truths in first speech since quitting race Can Deadpool and Wolverine spark Marvel's revival? Would-be reality TV contestants 'not looking real' I remortgaged my house to move into a shipping container The Charlotte Dujardin case explained Namibia turns the visa tables on Western nations Breaking the golden rule of train travel Who will âsashay awayâ first? The final landing at Nicosia Airport The victims 'still fight for justice' © 2024 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
User comment:
|
Typing, Comment
|
Ouch. Typed all that up.....
|
News article:
Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. The setting sun illuminates the Supreme Court building on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Jan. 10, 2023. The Supreme Court is allowing New York to continue to enforce a sweeping new gun law banning guns from “sensitive places” for now while a court challenge plays out. The justices on Jan. 11 turned away a plea by the law’s challengers. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky) FILE - A traffic sign on the corner of 42nd Street and 6th Avenue announces Times Square as a gun free zone, Oct. 11, 2022, in New York. The Supreme Court is allowing New York to continue to enforce a sweeping new gun law banning guns from “sensitive places” for now while a court challenge plays out. The justices on Jan. 11, 2023, turned away a plea by the law’s challengers. (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer, File) FILE - A sign reading “Gun Free Zone” is posted near around Times Square, Aug. 31, 2022, in New York. The Supreme Court is allowing New York to continue to enforce a sweeping new gun law banning guns from “sensitive places” for now while a court challenge plays out. The justices on Jan. 11, 2023, turned away a plea by the law’s challengers. (AP Photo/Yuki Iwamura, File) WASHINGTON (AP) — New York can for now continue to enforce a sweeping new law that bans guns from “sensitive places” including schools, playgrounds and Times Square, the Supreme Court said Wednesday, allowing the law to be in force while a lawsuit over it plays out. The justices turned away an emergency request by New York gun owners challenging the law. The gun owners wanted the high court to lift a federal appeals court order that had permitted the law to be in effect. The appeals court hasn’t finished its review of the case, and justices are often reluctant to weigh in under those circumstances. The justices could still consider the case and the law more generally in the future. In a two-paragraph statement that accompanied the court’s order, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the New York law at issue in the case “presents novel and serious questions.” But Alito, writing for himself and fellow conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, said they understood the court’s decision not to intervene now “to reflect respect” for the appeals court’s “procedures in managing its own docket, rather than expressing any view on the merits of the case.” In a statement, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul cheered the court’s action. “I’m pleased that this Supreme Court order will allow us to continue enforcing the gun laws we put in place to do just that. We believe that these thoughtful, sensible regulations will help to prevent gun violence,” she said.
The law’s challengers, meanwhile, underscored that their efforts would continue. In a statement, Gun Owners of America Senior Vice President Erich Pratt said that while his group had “hoped for immediate relief” they found Alito’s statement “incredibly reassuring” and “look forward to continuing the fight against New York’s draconian law.” New York lawmakers rewrote the state’s handgun laws over the summer after a June Supreme Court ruling invalidated New York’s old system for granting permits to carry handguns outside the home. The ruling said that Americans have a right to carry firearms in public for self-defense, invalidating the New York law, which required people to show a specific need to get a license to carry a gun outside the home. The ruling was a major expansion of gun rights nationwide and resulted in challenges to other, similar state laws. The new law New York passed in the wake of the ruling broadly expanded who can get a license to carry a handgun, but it increased training requirements for applicants and required people seeking a license to provide more information including a list of their social media accounts. Applicants for a license must also demonstrate “good moral character.” Beyond that, the law included a long list of “sensitive places” where firearms are banned, among them: schools, playgrounds, places of worship, entertainment venues, places that serve alcohol and Times Square. U.S. District Judge Glenn Suddaby, however, declared multiple portions of the law unconstitutional and issued a preliminary injunction barring certain provisions’ enforcement. For example, Suddaby blocked portions of the law requiring applicants for a concealed carry license to show “good moral character” and to hand over information about their social media accounts. He also blocked parts of the law barring guns from theaters, parks, zoos and places where alcohol is served. His decision kept in place, however, provisions barring guns at schools and playgrounds, among other things, because of historical support for those restrictions. He also kept in place the ban on guns in Times Square. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit had put Suddaby’s ruling on hold while it considers the case. Challengers to the law had asked the high court to step in and allow Suddaby’s ruling to go into effect while the case continues. It was that request the justices declined. Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
User comment:
|
Sensible, Decision
|
A sensible decision for sure.
|
News article:
Some of Fox News' most prominent personalities are expected to testify in the Dominion lawsuit trial Testimony in the highly anticipated defamation trial pitting Dominion Voting Systems against Fox News is set to start - and jurors may be seeing a few familiar faces. Dominion, a voting technology company, is suing Fox for $1.6bn (£1.29bn) in damages, claiming that the TV network knowingly spread falsehoods about the firm's role in the 2020 US election that ousted Donald Trump from the White House. Over the course of the trial, jurors are likely to hear from billionaire Fox owner Rupert Murdoch and immensely popular - and controversial - TV host Tucker Carlson, among an array of other executives and well-known on-air personalities. Jurors will be asked to determine whether Fox showed "actual malice" by knowingly and willingly reporting things that were untrue and potentially damaging for the voting machine maker. Fox denies the claims. In a statement sent to the BBC, the company said the lawsuit "is a political crusade in search of financial windfall" and said Dominion "has pushed irrelevant and misleading information to generate headlines". Here's what we know about some of the key players in the case and how they fit in. Dominion claims that Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch played a key editorial role at Fox News As the trial begins, all eyes will be on Fox Corporation's 91-year-old co-chairman and his son Lachlan, who is the co-chairman and CEO. In the lawsuit, Dominion claims that the two Murdochs held ultimate editorial responsibility during the elections, and allowed falsehoods about Dominion to be spread despite knowing they were untrue. Court documents filed by Dominion after a deposition of the elder Mr Murdoch revealed that he did not believe many of the theories being "endorsed" by some Fox commentators. The big questions in $1.6bn lawsuit against Fox Judge rebukes Fox News ahead of defamation trial In retrospect, he said, he would have liked the company to be "stronger in denouncing it". He also said that he "could have" prevented conspiracy-prone guests from appearing on-air, but did not. Tucker Carlson was privately dismissive of many of the claims against Dominion In the aftermath of the 2020 election, the now 53-year-old TV host broadcast more than 20 episodes of his show that Dominion's lawsuit claims were defamatory. Off-camera, however, Mr Carlson repeatedly dismissed the claims, which he called "absurd" and "insane", according to communications revealed in court documents. Additionally, while he was publicly a vocal supporter of Donald Trump's claims of fraud in the 2020 election, court documents show that he said he hated the former President "passionately" and that he "can't wait" to ignore him. Dominion's lawyers are likely to focus on these inconsistencies in their bid to prove the "actual malice" needed for a successful defamation case. Guests on Sean Hannity's show repeated baseless claims about Dominion Another TV star expected on the stand is Sean Hannity, the host of the popular and his self-titled "Hannity" show on Fox. In court documents, Dominion's lawyers have specifically singled out an episode of the show that aired on 30 November, 2020 in which Mr Hannity had Sidney Powell, a former Trump lawyer, as guest. During the episode, Ms Powell repeated baseless conspiracy theories about Dominion's role in the election. Mr Hannity later said in a deposition that he did not believe Ms Powell's claims "for one second", despite having brought her on his show. Ms Powell, for his part, features heavily in the lawsuit and is among one of three people who repeatedly repeated conspiracy theories on Fox shows, including Mr Hannity's, Mr Carlson's and others. Fox defamation trial delayed amid settlement talks Internal communications show that Fox News employees repeatedly told each other they did not believe many of the allegations. Former House Speaker Paul Ryan became a member of Fox Corporation's Board in 2019 Mr Ryan, 53, served as Speaker of the House of Representatives from 2015 to 2019. In March 2019, he joined the board of the Fox Corporation. According to court documents filed by Dominion, Mr Ryan sent a message to Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch calling for "solid pushback" against outlandish claims in the wake of the 2020 election. "I think we are entering a truly bizarre phase of this where he has actually convinced himself of this farce and will do more bizarre things to delegitimize the election," he said, adding that he saw the election as an "inflection point" for the network. Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott expressed concern that the network would lose viewers after calling Arizona in Biden's favour Among the top Fox executives expected to testify is Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott. Dominion's court filings single her out as ultimately being "responsible for the content of the shows" on the network, with the "authority to direct shows to not host certain guests or broadcast certain content". On 9 November 2020 - just days after the election - Ms Scott e-mailed Rupert Murdoch to stress upon him the importance of keeping an audience "who loves and trusts" the network, particularly after Fox's decision to call the state of Arizona in Joe Biden's favour. That call, she said, had been "damaging", but could be addressed by an effort to "highlight our stars and plant flags letting the viewers know we hear them, and respect them". Additionally, Dominion's court filings show that the firm alerted Ms Scott, along with several other top Fox executives, that they were airing "verifiably wrong information". Experts have noted that a significant part of Dominion's case will be to show that Fox was repeatedly warned about the falsehoods being shared on-air. The big questions in $1.6bn lawsuit against Fox Judge rebukes Fox News ahead of defamation trial Fox defamation trial delayed amid settlement talks Police officer suspended after airport kicking video Ukraine thrown into war's bleak future as drones open new battlefront Aniston hits back at 'childless' remark by Trump's VP pick Charli XCX and Beth Gibbons up for Mercury Prize A visual guide to the Olympics Could you keep up with Hodgkinson's 800m pace? Biden sidesteps hard truths in first speech since quitting race Can Deadpool and Wolverine spark Marvel's revival? Would-be reality TV contestants 'not looking real' I remortgaged my house to move into a shipping container The Charlotte Dujardin case explained Namibia turns the visa tables on Western nations Breaking the golden rule of train travel Who will âsashay awayâ first? The final landing at Nicosia Airport The victims 'still fight for justice' © 2024 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
User comment:
|
Over, Lmao
|
It’s over already. Lmao
|
News article:
Former NFL defensive lineman Chris Smith has died at 31 Former NFL star Chris Smith has died, his agent announced on Twitter, external. He was 31. Smith, who was a former defensive lineman for the Cleveland Browns, spent eight years in the NFL and played for multiple teams including the Jacksonville Jaguars, the Cincinnati Bengals and the Las Vegas Raiders. His cause of death was not immediately known. On social media, tributes poured in for the former player. "Chris was one of the kindest people, team-mates and friends we've had in our organisation," the Browns team wrote on Twitter. Smith began his NFL career in 2014 when he was drafted by the Jacksonville Jaguars as a defensive lineman. But his personal life was marred by tragedy. In 2019, his girlfriend Petara Cordero was killed in a car accident just weeks after giving birth to their child. Chris Smith played for multiple teams in the NFL including the Cleveland Browns Tony Khan, son of Jacksonville Jaguars owner Shahid Khan, described Smith, external as a "great team-mate and friend". "He suffered a tragic loss," he wrote on Twitter. "I hope they are reunited in Heaven." Smith spent three seasons with the Jaguars before going on to play for the Cincinnati Bengals and the Cleveland Browns. But before he joined the NFL, he was a hometown hero and star of his North Carolina high school football team, according to a local newspaper. "He had been the ultimate give-back guy and had been a generous donor to local schools and projects," the Salisbury Post wrote in an obituary, external. Police officer suspended after airport kicking video Ukraine thrown into war's bleak future as drones open new battlefront Aniston hits back at 'childless' remark by Trump's VP pick Charli XCX and Beth Gibbons up for Mercury Prize A visual guide to the Olympics Could you keep up with Hodgkinson's 800m pace? Biden sidesteps hard truths in first speech since quitting race Can Deadpool and Wolverine spark Marvel's revival? Would-be reality TV contestants 'not looking real' I remortgaged my house to move into a shipping container The Charlotte Dujardin case explained Namibia turns the visa tables on Western nations Breaking the golden rule of train travel Who will âsashay awayâ first? The final landing at Nicosia Airport The victims 'still fight for justice' © 2024 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
User comment:
|
Anti-vax, Vaccine
|
Ready for the anti-vax croud stating it was because of the Covid vaccine...
|
News article:
The suspect allegedly professed neo-Nazi ideologies online. A Michigan suspect who authorities say expressed explicit neo-Nazi and antisemitic ideologies online was arrested Friday by the FBI who alleged he stockpiled weapons and was planning a mass shooting. The United States Attorney's Office for the Western District of Michigan charged Seann Pietila, 19, of Pickford, Michigan with transmitting a communication containing a threat to injure another. Investigators allege the suspect had communicated with another user on Instagram where they expressed strong views against the Jewish population, support for neo-Nazis and idolization of previous mass shooters, according to the criminal complaint. When the FBI searched the suspect's home earlier Friday they found a cache of weapons, a Nazi flag, a ghillie suit, gas masks, and military sniper/survival manuals, the criminal complaint said. A search of the suspect's phone found a message in the Notes app where he had identified a synagogue in East Lansing, a date and a list of equipment, according to the complaint. "Antisemitic threats and violence against our Jewish communities -- or any other group for that matter -- will not be tolerated in the Western District of Michigan," U.S. Attorney Mark Totten said in a statement. "Today and every day we take all credible threats seriously. Attorney information for the suspect wasn't immediately available. The suspect's mother, Brittany Stob, told ABC News in a phone call on Saturday that her son is still in jail pending a detention hearing next week. Stob asserted she believes her 19-year-old son is not violent and was not truly planning an attack, as alleged by federal prosecutors. "He said some stuff online that he shouldn't have," Stob said. "He's a good kid. He would never hurt anybody." Stob also said the guns and tactical gear seized by the FBI in the search of Pietila's home this week belonged to her and her husband, not her son. Stob said her son began consuming antisemitic content online when he was isolated during the pandemic and didn't have access to the mental health treatment he needed. The FBI said it received a report Tuesday about threatening communications made online, the complaint said. Meta provided investigators with information related to the user name associated with the threats and the FBI alleges it found several messages by the user, who was later identified as the suspect, making antisemitic slurs, and praising neo-Nazi ideology. The suspect allegedly talked about his admiration for the 2019 Christchurch mass shooting in New Zealand, according to the criminal complaint. The date allegedly found on the notes app was the fifth anniversary of the New Zealand shooting. Further investigation into the suspect's social media accounts found other images and posts that included posts of Nazi imagery and other mass shooters, the complaint said. Among the contraband allegedly found in the suspect's home during the search warrant were magazines, a shotgun, a rifle, a pistol, various knives and firearms accessories, according to the complaint. "No American should face threats against them based on their race or religion," James A. Tarasca, the Special Agent in Charge of the FBI in Michigan said in a statement. "Crimes like the one alleged in this complaint have a profound effect not only on the intended target, but on their entire community." 24/7 coverage of breaking news and live events
User comment:
|
Bumfuck, Michigan
|
Bumfuck, Michigan- of course.
|
News article:
Some of Fox News' most prominent personalities are expected to testify in the Dominion lawsuit trial Testimony in the highly anticipated defamation trial pitting Dominion Voting Systems against Fox News is set to start - and jurors may be seeing a few familiar faces. Dominion, a voting technology company, is suing Fox for $1.6bn (£1.29bn) in damages, claiming that the TV network knowingly spread falsehoods about the firm's role in the 2020 US election that ousted Donald Trump from the White House. Over the course of the trial, jurors are likely to hear from billionaire Fox owner Rupert Murdoch and immensely popular - and controversial - TV host Tucker Carlson, among an array of other executives and well-known on-air personalities. Jurors will be asked to determine whether Fox showed "actual malice" by knowingly and willingly reporting things that were untrue and potentially damaging for the voting machine maker. Fox denies the claims. In a statement sent to the BBC, the company said the lawsuit "is a political crusade in search of financial windfall" and said Dominion "has pushed irrelevant and misleading information to generate headlines". Here's what we know about some of the key players in the case and how they fit in. Dominion claims that Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch played a key editorial role at Fox News As the trial begins, all eyes will be on Fox Corporation's 91-year-old co-chairman and his son Lachlan, who is the co-chairman and CEO. In the lawsuit, Dominion claims that the two Murdochs held ultimate editorial responsibility during the elections, and allowed falsehoods about Dominion to be spread despite knowing they were untrue. Court documents filed by Dominion after a deposition of the elder Mr Murdoch revealed that he did not believe many of the theories being "endorsed" by some Fox commentators. The big questions in $1.6bn lawsuit against Fox Judge rebukes Fox News ahead of defamation trial In retrospect, he said, he would have liked the company to be "stronger in denouncing it". He also said that he "could have" prevented conspiracy-prone guests from appearing on-air, but did not. Tucker Carlson was privately dismissive of many of the claims against Dominion In the aftermath of the 2020 election, the now 53-year-old TV host broadcast more than 20 episodes of his show that Dominion's lawsuit claims were defamatory. Off-camera, however, Mr Carlson repeatedly dismissed the claims, which he called "absurd" and "insane", according to communications revealed in court documents. Additionally, while he was publicly a vocal supporter of Donald Trump's claims of fraud in the 2020 election, court documents show that he said he hated the former President "passionately" and that he "can't wait" to ignore him. Dominion's lawyers are likely to focus on these inconsistencies in their bid to prove the "actual malice" needed for a successful defamation case. Guests on Sean Hannity's show repeated baseless claims about Dominion Another TV star expected on the stand is Sean Hannity, the host of the popular and his self-titled "Hannity" show on Fox. In court documents, Dominion's lawyers have specifically singled out an episode of the show that aired on 30 November, 2020 in which Mr Hannity had Sidney Powell, a former Trump lawyer, as guest. During the episode, Ms Powell repeated baseless conspiracy theories about Dominion's role in the election. Mr Hannity later said in a deposition that he did not believe Ms Powell's claims "for one second", despite having brought her on his show. Ms Powell, for his part, features heavily in the lawsuit and is among one of three people who repeatedly repeated conspiracy theories on Fox shows, including Mr Hannity's, Mr Carlson's and others. Fox defamation trial delayed amid settlement talks Internal communications show that Fox News employees repeatedly told each other they did not believe many of the allegations. Former House Speaker Paul Ryan became a member of Fox Corporation's Board in 2019 Mr Ryan, 53, served as Speaker of the House of Representatives from 2015 to 2019. In March 2019, he joined the board of the Fox Corporation. According to court documents filed by Dominion, Mr Ryan sent a message to Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch calling for "solid pushback" against outlandish claims in the wake of the 2020 election. "I think we are entering a truly bizarre phase of this where he has actually convinced himself of this farce and will do more bizarre things to delegitimize the election," he said, adding that he saw the election as an "inflection point" for the network. Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott expressed concern that the network would lose viewers after calling Arizona in Biden's favour Among the top Fox executives expected to testify is Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott. Dominion's court filings single her out as ultimately being "responsible for the content of the shows" on the network, with the "authority to direct shows to not host certain guests or broadcast certain content". On 9 November 2020 - just days after the election - Ms Scott e-mailed Rupert Murdoch to stress upon him the importance of keeping an audience "who loves and trusts" the network, particularly after Fox's decision to call the state of Arizona in Joe Biden's favour. That call, she said, had been "damaging", but could be addressed by an effort to "highlight our stars and plant flags letting the viewers know we hear them, and respect them". Additionally, Dominion's court filings show that the firm alerted Ms Scott, along with several other top Fox executives, that they were airing "verifiably wrong information". Experts have noted that a significant part of Dominion's case will be to show that Fox was repeatedly warned about the falsehoods being shared on-air. The big questions in $1.6bn lawsuit against Fox Judge rebukes Fox News ahead of defamation trial Fox defamation trial delayed amid settlement talks Police officer suspended after airport kicking video Ukraine thrown into war's bleak future as drones open new battlefront Aniston hits back at 'childless' remark by Trump's VP pick Charli XCX and Beth Gibbons up for Mercury Prize A visual guide to the Olympics Could you keep up with Hodgkinson's 800m pace? Biden sidesteps hard truths in first speech since quitting race Can Deadpool and Wolverine spark Marvel's revival? Would-be reality TV contestants 'not looking real' I remortgaged my house to move into a shipping container The Charlotte Dujardin case explained Namibia turns the visa tables on Western nations Breaking the golden rule of train travel Who will âsashay awayâ first? The final landing at Nicosia Airport The victims 'still fight for justice' © 2024 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
User comment:
|
Hope, Lies, Court
|
I hope Fox people writhed getting grilled in court for all their lies they deliberately spread to public.
|
News article:
Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. The setting sun illuminates the Supreme Court building on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Jan. 10, 2023. The Supreme Court is allowing New York to continue to enforce a sweeping new gun law banning guns from “sensitive places” for now while a court challenge plays out. The justices on Jan. 11 turned away a plea by the law’s challengers. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky) FILE - A traffic sign on the corner of 42nd Street and 6th Avenue announces Times Square as a gun free zone, Oct. 11, 2022, in New York. The Supreme Court is allowing New York to continue to enforce a sweeping new gun law banning guns from “sensitive places” for now while a court challenge plays out. The justices on Jan. 11, 2023, turned away a plea by the law’s challengers. (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer, File) FILE - A sign reading “Gun Free Zone” is posted near around Times Square, Aug. 31, 2022, in New York. The Supreme Court is allowing New York to continue to enforce a sweeping new gun law banning guns from “sensitive places” for now while a court challenge plays out. The justices on Jan. 11, 2023, turned away a plea by the law’s challengers. (AP Photo/Yuki Iwamura, File) WASHINGTON (AP) — New York can for now continue to enforce a sweeping new law that bans guns from “sensitive places” including schools, playgrounds and Times Square, the Supreme Court said Wednesday, allowing the law to be in force while a lawsuit over it plays out. The justices turned away an emergency request by New York gun owners challenging the law. The gun owners wanted the high court to lift a federal appeals court order that had permitted the law to be in effect. The appeals court hasn’t finished its review of the case, and justices are often reluctant to weigh in under those circumstances. The justices could still consider the case and the law more generally in the future. In a two-paragraph statement that accompanied the court’s order, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the New York law at issue in the case “presents novel and serious questions.” But Alito, writing for himself and fellow conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, said they understood the court’s decision not to intervene now “to reflect respect” for the appeals court’s “procedures in managing its own docket, rather than expressing any view on the merits of the case.” In a statement, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul cheered the court’s action. “I’m pleased that this Supreme Court order will allow us to continue enforcing the gun laws we put in place to do just that. We believe that these thoughtful, sensible regulations will help to prevent gun violence,” she said.
The law’s challengers, meanwhile, underscored that their efforts would continue. In a statement, Gun Owners of America Senior Vice President Erich Pratt said that while his group had “hoped for immediate relief” they found Alito’s statement “incredibly reassuring” and “look forward to continuing the fight against New York’s draconian law.” New York lawmakers rewrote the state’s handgun laws over the summer after a June Supreme Court ruling invalidated New York’s old system for granting permits to carry handguns outside the home. The ruling said that Americans have a right to carry firearms in public for self-defense, invalidating the New York law, which required people to show a specific need to get a license to carry a gun outside the home. The ruling was a major expansion of gun rights nationwide and resulted in challenges to other, similar state laws. The new law New York passed in the wake of the ruling broadly expanded who can get a license to carry a handgun, but it increased training requirements for applicants and required people seeking a license to provide more information including a list of their social media accounts. Applicants for a license must also demonstrate “good moral character.” Beyond that, the law included a long list of “sensitive places” where firearms are banned, among them: schools, playgrounds, places of worship, entertainment venues, places that serve alcohol and Times Square. U.S. District Judge Glenn Suddaby, however, declared multiple portions of the law unconstitutional and issued a preliminary injunction barring certain provisions’ enforcement. For example, Suddaby blocked portions of the law requiring applicants for a concealed carry license to show “good moral character” and to hand over information about their social media accounts. He also blocked parts of the law barring guns from theaters, parks, zoos and places where alcohol is served. His decision kept in place, however, provisions barring guns at schools and playgrounds, among other things, because of historical support for those restrictions. He also kept in place the ban on guns in Times Square. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit had put Suddaby’s ruling on hold while it considers the case. Challengers to the law had asked the high court to step in and allow Suddaby’s ruling to go into effect while the case continues. It was that request the justices declined. Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
User comment:
|
Cops, Passwords
|
Want all my passwords too, you stupid coppers?
|
News article:
Some of Fox News' most prominent personalities are expected to testify in the Dominion lawsuit trial Testimony in the highly anticipated defamation trial pitting Dominion Voting Systems against Fox News is set to start - and jurors may be seeing a few familiar faces. Dominion, a voting technology company, is suing Fox for $1.6bn (£1.29bn) in damages, claiming that the TV network knowingly spread falsehoods about the firm's role in the 2020 US election that ousted Donald Trump from the White House. Over the course of the trial, jurors are likely to hear from billionaire Fox owner Rupert Murdoch and immensely popular - and controversial - TV host Tucker Carlson, among an array of other executives and well-known on-air personalities. Jurors will be asked to determine whether Fox showed "actual malice" by knowingly and willingly reporting things that were untrue and potentially damaging for the voting machine maker. Fox denies the claims. In a statement sent to the BBC, the company said the lawsuit "is a political crusade in search of financial windfall" and said Dominion "has pushed irrelevant and misleading information to generate headlines". Here's what we know about some of the key players in the case and how they fit in. Dominion claims that Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch played a key editorial role at Fox News As the trial begins, all eyes will be on Fox Corporation's 91-year-old co-chairman and his son Lachlan, who is the co-chairman and CEO. In the lawsuit, Dominion claims that the two Murdochs held ultimate editorial responsibility during the elections, and allowed falsehoods about Dominion to be spread despite knowing they were untrue. Court documents filed by Dominion after a deposition of the elder Mr Murdoch revealed that he did not believe many of the theories being "endorsed" by some Fox commentators. The big questions in $1.6bn lawsuit against Fox Judge rebukes Fox News ahead of defamation trial In retrospect, he said, he would have liked the company to be "stronger in denouncing it". He also said that he "could have" prevented conspiracy-prone guests from appearing on-air, but did not. Tucker Carlson was privately dismissive of many of the claims against Dominion In the aftermath of the 2020 election, the now 53-year-old TV host broadcast more than 20 episodes of his show that Dominion's lawsuit claims were defamatory. Off-camera, however, Mr Carlson repeatedly dismissed the claims, which he called "absurd" and "insane", according to communications revealed in court documents. Additionally, while he was publicly a vocal supporter of Donald Trump's claims of fraud in the 2020 election, court documents show that he said he hated the former President "passionately" and that he "can't wait" to ignore him. Dominion's lawyers are likely to focus on these inconsistencies in their bid to prove the "actual malice" needed for a successful defamation case. Guests on Sean Hannity's show repeated baseless claims about Dominion Another TV star expected on the stand is Sean Hannity, the host of the popular and his self-titled "Hannity" show on Fox. In court documents, Dominion's lawyers have specifically singled out an episode of the show that aired on 30 November, 2020 in which Mr Hannity had Sidney Powell, a former Trump lawyer, as guest. During the episode, Ms Powell repeated baseless conspiracy theories about Dominion's role in the election. Mr Hannity later said in a deposition that he did not believe Ms Powell's claims "for one second", despite having brought her on his show. Ms Powell, for his part, features heavily in the lawsuit and is among one of three people who repeatedly repeated conspiracy theories on Fox shows, including Mr Hannity's, Mr Carlson's and others. Fox defamation trial delayed amid settlement talks Internal communications show that Fox News employees repeatedly told each other they did not believe many of the allegations. Former House Speaker Paul Ryan became a member of Fox Corporation's Board in 2019 Mr Ryan, 53, served as Speaker of the House of Representatives from 2015 to 2019. In March 2019, he joined the board of the Fox Corporation. According to court documents filed by Dominion, Mr Ryan sent a message to Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch calling for "solid pushback" against outlandish claims in the wake of the 2020 election. "I think we are entering a truly bizarre phase of this where he has actually convinced himself of this farce and will do more bizarre things to delegitimize the election," he said, adding that he saw the election as an "inflection point" for the network. Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott expressed concern that the network would lose viewers after calling Arizona in Biden's favour Among the top Fox executives expected to testify is Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott. Dominion's court filings single her out as ultimately being "responsible for the content of the shows" on the network, with the "authority to direct shows to not host certain guests or broadcast certain content". On 9 November 2020 - just days after the election - Ms Scott e-mailed Rupert Murdoch to stress upon him the importance of keeping an audience "who loves and trusts" the network, particularly after Fox's decision to call the state of Arizona in Joe Biden's favour. That call, she said, had been "damaging", but could be addressed by an effort to "highlight our stars and plant flags letting the viewers know we hear them, and respect them". Additionally, Dominion's court filings show that the firm alerted Ms Scott, along with several other top Fox executives, that they were airing "verifiably wrong information". Experts have noted that a significant part of Dominion's case will be to show that Fox was repeatedly warned about the falsehoods being shared on-air. The big questions in $1.6bn lawsuit against Fox Judge rebukes Fox News ahead of defamation trial Fox defamation trial delayed amid settlement talks Police officer suspended after airport kicking video Ukraine thrown into war's bleak future as drones open new battlefront Aniston hits back at 'childless' remark by Trump's VP pick Charli XCX and Beth Gibbons up for Mercury Prize A visual guide to the Olympics Could you keep up with Hodgkinson's 800m pace? Biden sidesteps hard truths in first speech since quitting race Can Deadpool and Wolverine spark Marvel's revival? Would-be reality TV contestants 'not looking real' I remortgaged my house to move into a shipping container The Charlotte Dujardin case explained Namibia turns the visa tables on Western nations Breaking the golden rule of train travel Who will âsashay awayâ first? The final landing at Nicosia Airport The victims 'still fight for justice' © 2024 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
User comment:
|
Settlement, Mark, Lie
|
$800M settlement. That's gonna leave a mark. Guess Fox had the wrong players. Then they had them all lie.
|
News article:
Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. The setting sun illuminates the Supreme Court building on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Jan. 10, 2023. The Supreme Court is allowing New York to continue to enforce a sweeping new gun law banning guns from “sensitive places” for now while a court challenge plays out. The justices on Jan. 11 turned away a plea by the law’s challengers. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky) FILE - A traffic sign on the corner of 42nd Street and 6th Avenue announces Times Square as a gun free zone, Oct. 11, 2022, in New York. The Supreme Court is allowing New York to continue to enforce a sweeping new gun law banning guns from “sensitive places” for now while a court challenge plays out. The justices on Jan. 11, 2023, turned away a plea by the law’s challengers. (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer, File) FILE - A sign reading “Gun Free Zone” is posted near around Times Square, Aug. 31, 2022, in New York. The Supreme Court is allowing New York to continue to enforce a sweeping new gun law banning guns from “sensitive places” for now while a court challenge plays out. The justices on Jan. 11, 2023, turned away a plea by the law’s challengers. (AP Photo/Yuki Iwamura, File) WASHINGTON (AP) — New York can for now continue to enforce a sweeping new law that bans guns from “sensitive places” including schools, playgrounds and Times Square, the Supreme Court said Wednesday, allowing the law to be in force while a lawsuit over it plays out. The justices turned away an emergency request by New York gun owners challenging the law. The gun owners wanted the high court to lift a federal appeals court order that had permitted the law to be in effect. The appeals court hasn’t finished its review of the case, and justices are often reluctant to weigh in under those circumstances. The justices could still consider the case and the law more generally in the future. In a two-paragraph statement that accompanied the court’s order, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the New York law at issue in the case “presents novel and serious questions.” But Alito, writing for himself and fellow conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, said they understood the court’s decision not to intervene now “to reflect respect” for the appeals court’s “procedures in managing its own docket, rather than expressing any view on the merits of the case.” In a statement, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul cheered the court’s action. “I’m pleased that this Supreme Court order will allow us to continue enforcing the gun laws we put in place to do just that. We believe that these thoughtful, sensible regulations will help to prevent gun violence,” she said.
The law’s challengers, meanwhile, underscored that their efforts would continue. In a statement, Gun Owners of America Senior Vice President Erich Pratt said that while his group had “hoped for immediate relief” they found Alito’s statement “incredibly reassuring” and “look forward to continuing the fight against New York’s draconian law.” New York lawmakers rewrote the state’s handgun laws over the summer after a June Supreme Court ruling invalidated New York’s old system for granting permits to carry handguns outside the home. The ruling said that Americans have a right to carry firearms in public for self-defense, invalidating the New York law, which required people to show a specific need to get a license to carry a gun outside the home. The ruling was a major expansion of gun rights nationwide and resulted in challenges to other, similar state laws. The new law New York passed in the wake of the ruling broadly expanded who can get a license to carry a handgun, but it increased training requirements for applicants and required people seeking a license to provide more information including a list of their social media accounts. Applicants for a license must also demonstrate “good moral character.” Beyond that, the law included a long list of “sensitive places” where firearms are banned, among them: schools, playgrounds, places of worship, entertainment venues, places that serve alcohol and Times Square. U.S. District Judge Glenn Suddaby, however, declared multiple portions of the law unconstitutional and issued a preliminary injunction barring certain provisions’ enforcement. For example, Suddaby blocked portions of the law requiring applicants for a concealed carry license to show “good moral character” and to hand over information about their social media accounts. He also blocked parts of the law barring guns from theaters, parks, zoos and places where alcohol is served. His decision kept in place, however, provisions barring guns at schools and playgrounds, among other things, because of historical support for those restrictions. He also kept in place the ban on guns in Times Square. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit had put Suddaby’s ruling on hold while it considers the case. Challengers to the law had asked the high court to step in and allow Suddaby’s ruling to go into effect while the case continues. It was that request the justices declined. Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
User comment:
|
Training, Social media, Requirement
|
> The new law New York passed in the wake of the ruling broadly expanded who can get a license to carry a handgun, but it increased training requirements for applicants and required people seeking a license to provide more information including a list of their social media accounts.
I’m all for more training but what if you don’t have any social media accounts? That’s a ridiculous requirement.
|
News article:
A woman has filed a lawsuit against Aerosmith lead singer Steven Tyler, alleging sexual assault, coercion of an abortion and involuntary infamy in the 1970s when she was a minor and he was in his mid-20s.
Attorneys for Julia Misley, formerly known as Julia Holcomb, filed the lawsuit on Tuesday in Los Angeles County. The suit was filed under the California Child Victims Act, which allows survivors of childhood sexual abuse to file civil cases. The three-year “lookback” window ends Saturday.
In a statement, Misley said the change in the law encouraged her to take legal action.
“I want this action to expose an industry that protects celebrity offenders, to cleanse and hold accountable an industry that both exploited and allowed me to be exploited for years, along with so many other naïve and vulnerable kids and adults,” Misley said in a statement.
According to the lawsuit, Misley first met Tyler, referred to as Defendant Doe 1 in the lawsuit, in 1973 after Tyler performed a concert in Portland, Oregon. At the time, Misley was 16 and Tyler was 25.
Related article
Steven Tyler enters treatment after relapsing
The lawsuit alleges that Tyler, now 74, took Misley to his hotel room and “performed various acts of criminal sexual conduct” upon her that night.
The lawsuit alleges, Tyler purchased a plane ticket for Misley to join him in Seattle for the band’s next show. The lawsuit alleges Misley was also abused after that show.
According to the lawsuit, in 1974, Tyler convinced Misley’s mother to “sign over the guardianship of her daughter to him.” Tyler made promises to the mother that he would enroll her in school, help support her and help provide her with better medical care than her mother could provide, according to the lawsuit.
“Defendant Doe 1 did not meaningfully follow through on these promises and instead continued to travel with, assault and provide alcohol and drugs to plaintiff,” the lawsuit alleges.
The suit also alleges that Tyler impregnated Misley and coerced her to have an abortion.
“DEFENDANT DOE 1 (Tyler) pressured and coerced Plaintiff to have an abortion by threatening that he would send her back to her family and cease to support and love her,” according to the lawsuit. “Plaintiff relented and the abortion was performed,” the suit added.
“The complaint that has been prepared by my legal team recites in legal terms the trajectory of my life from early struggles to exploitation by Steven Tyler, the music industry, my escape from that world, my recovery and transformation, my restoration of spirit through faith, the building of a family and the rebuilding of my life,” Misley said in a statement.
Related article
Steven Tyler opens home for abused girls
The lawsuit further alleges that Tyler has “intentionally publicized the acts he perpetrated” on Misley through multiple books that were published describing the assaults.
In a 2011 memoir, “Does the Noise in My Head Bother You?” Tyler writes about being so in love he “almost took a teen bride” whom the book does not identify.
“I went and slept at her parents’ house for a couple of nights and her parents fell in love with me, signed papers over for me to have custody, so I wouldn’t get arrested if I took her out of state. I took her on tour with me,” he wrote.
Tyler’s accuser said the publications retraumatized her and her family.
“I am grateful for this new opportunity to take action and be heard,” Misley said in a statement.
CNN has reached out to representatives for Steven Tyler for comment.
© 2024 Cable News Network. A Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All Rights Reserved. CNN Sans ™ & © 2016 Cable News Network.
User comment:
|
Time, Accurate
|
It’s only been 50 years. I’m sure this is as good a time as any to try and sort this out accurately.
|
News article:
A woman has filed a lawsuit against Aerosmith lead singer Steven Tyler, alleging sexual assault, coercion of an abortion and involuntary infamy in the 1970s when she was a minor and he was in his mid-20s.
Attorneys for Julia Misley, formerly known as Julia Holcomb, filed the lawsuit on Tuesday in Los Angeles County. The suit was filed under the California Child Victims Act, which allows survivors of childhood sexual abuse to file civil cases. The three-year “lookback” window ends Saturday.
In a statement, Misley said the change in the law encouraged her to take legal action.
“I want this action to expose an industry that protects celebrity offenders, to cleanse and hold accountable an industry that both exploited and allowed me to be exploited for years, along with so many other naïve and vulnerable kids and adults,” Misley said in a statement.
According to the lawsuit, Misley first met Tyler, referred to as Defendant Doe 1 in the lawsuit, in 1973 after Tyler performed a concert in Portland, Oregon. At the time, Misley was 16 and Tyler was 25.
Related article
Steven Tyler enters treatment after relapsing
The lawsuit alleges that Tyler, now 74, took Misley to his hotel room and “performed various acts of criminal sexual conduct” upon her that night.
The lawsuit alleges, Tyler purchased a plane ticket for Misley to join him in Seattle for the band’s next show. The lawsuit alleges Misley was also abused after that show.
According to the lawsuit, in 1974, Tyler convinced Misley’s mother to “sign over the guardianship of her daughter to him.” Tyler made promises to the mother that he would enroll her in school, help support her and help provide her with better medical care than her mother could provide, according to the lawsuit.
“Defendant Doe 1 did not meaningfully follow through on these promises and instead continued to travel with, assault and provide alcohol and drugs to plaintiff,” the lawsuit alleges.
The suit also alleges that Tyler impregnated Misley and coerced her to have an abortion.
“DEFENDANT DOE 1 (Tyler) pressured and coerced Plaintiff to have an abortion by threatening that he would send her back to her family and cease to support and love her,” according to the lawsuit. “Plaintiff relented and the abortion was performed,” the suit added.
“The complaint that has been prepared by my legal team recites in legal terms the trajectory of my life from early struggles to exploitation by Steven Tyler, the music industry, my escape from that world, my recovery and transformation, my restoration of spirit through faith, the building of a family and the rebuilding of my life,” Misley said in a statement.
Related article
Steven Tyler opens home for abused girls
The lawsuit further alleges that Tyler has “intentionally publicized the acts he perpetrated” on Misley through multiple books that were published describing the assaults.
In a 2011 memoir, “Does the Noise in My Head Bother You?” Tyler writes about being so in love he “almost took a teen bride” whom the book does not identify.
“I went and slept at her parents’ house for a couple of nights and her parents fell in love with me, signed papers over for me to have custody, so I wouldn’t get arrested if I took her out of state. I took her on tour with me,” he wrote.
Tyler’s accuser said the publications retraumatized her and her family.
“I am grateful for this new opportunity to take action and be heard,” Misley said in a statement.
CNN has reached out to representatives for Steven Tyler for comment.
© 2024 Cable News Network. A Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All Rights Reserved. CNN Sans ™ & © 2016 Cable News Network.
User comment:
|
Pain, Time
|
Half a century is a long time but the pain will never go away.
|
News article:
Some of Fox News' most prominent personalities are expected to testify in the Dominion lawsuit trial Testimony in the highly anticipated defamation trial pitting Dominion Voting Systems against Fox News is set to start - and jurors may be seeing a few familiar faces. Dominion, a voting technology company, is suing Fox for $1.6bn (£1.29bn) in damages, claiming that the TV network knowingly spread falsehoods about the firm's role in the 2020 US election that ousted Donald Trump from the White House. Over the course of the trial, jurors are likely to hear from billionaire Fox owner Rupert Murdoch and immensely popular - and controversial - TV host Tucker Carlson, among an array of other executives and well-known on-air personalities. Jurors will be asked to determine whether Fox showed "actual malice" by knowingly and willingly reporting things that were untrue and potentially damaging for the voting machine maker. Fox denies the claims. In a statement sent to the BBC, the company said the lawsuit "is a political crusade in search of financial windfall" and said Dominion "has pushed irrelevant and misleading information to generate headlines". Here's what we know about some of the key players in the case and how they fit in. Dominion claims that Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch played a key editorial role at Fox News As the trial begins, all eyes will be on Fox Corporation's 91-year-old co-chairman and his son Lachlan, who is the co-chairman and CEO. In the lawsuit, Dominion claims that the two Murdochs held ultimate editorial responsibility during the elections, and allowed falsehoods about Dominion to be spread despite knowing they were untrue. Court documents filed by Dominion after a deposition of the elder Mr Murdoch revealed that he did not believe many of the theories being "endorsed" by some Fox commentators. The big questions in $1.6bn lawsuit against Fox Judge rebukes Fox News ahead of defamation trial In retrospect, he said, he would have liked the company to be "stronger in denouncing it". He also said that he "could have" prevented conspiracy-prone guests from appearing on-air, but did not. Tucker Carlson was privately dismissive of many of the claims against Dominion In the aftermath of the 2020 election, the now 53-year-old TV host broadcast more than 20 episodes of his show that Dominion's lawsuit claims were defamatory. Off-camera, however, Mr Carlson repeatedly dismissed the claims, which he called "absurd" and "insane", according to communications revealed in court documents. Additionally, while he was publicly a vocal supporter of Donald Trump's claims of fraud in the 2020 election, court documents show that he said he hated the former President "passionately" and that he "can't wait" to ignore him. Dominion's lawyers are likely to focus on these inconsistencies in their bid to prove the "actual malice" needed for a successful defamation case. Guests on Sean Hannity's show repeated baseless claims about Dominion Another TV star expected on the stand is Sean Hannity, the host of the popular and his self-titled "Hannity" show on Fox. In court documents, Dominion's lawyers have specifically singled out an episode of the show that aired on 30 November, 2020 in which Mr Hannity had Sidney Powell, a former Trump lawyer, as guest. During the episode, Ms Powell repeated baseless conspiracy theories about Dominion's role in the election. Mr Hannity later said in a deposition that he did not believe Ms Powell's claims "for one second", despite having brought her on his show. Ms Powell, for his part, features heavily in the lawsuit and is among one of three people who repeatedly repeated conspiracy theories on Fox shows, including Mr Hannity's, Mr Carlson's and others. Fox defamation trial delayed amid settlement talks Internal communications show that Fox News employees repeatedly told each other they did not believe many of the allegations. Former House Speaker Paul Ryan became a member of Fox Corporation's Board in 2019 Mr Ryan, 53, served as Speaker of the House of Representatives from 2015 to 2019. In March 2019, he joined the board of the Fox Corporation. According to court documents filed by Dominion, Mr Ryan sent a message to Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch calling for "solid pushback" against outlandish claims in the wake of the 2020 election. "I think we are entering a truly bizarre phase of this where he has actually convinced himself of this farce and will do more bizarre things to delegitimize the election," he said, adding that he saw the election as an "inflection point" for the network. Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott expressed concern that the network would lose viewers after calling Arizona in Biden's favour Among the top Fox executives expected to testify is Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott. Dominion's court filings single her out as ultimately being "responsible for the content of the shows" on the network, with the "authority to direct shows to not host certain guests or broadcast certain content". On 9 November 2020 - just days after the election - Ms Scott e-mailed Rupert Murdoch to stress upon him the importance of keeping an audience "who loves and trusts" the network, particularly after Fox's decision to call the state of Arizona in Joe Biden's favour. That call, she said, had been "damaging", but could be addressed by an effort to "highlight our stars and plant flags letting the viewers know we hear them, and respect them". Additionally, Dominion's court filings show that the firm alerted Ms Scott, along with several other top Fox executives, that they were airing "verifiably wrong information". Experts have noted that a significant part of Dominion's case will be to show that Fox was repeatedly warned about the falsehoods being shared on-air. The big questions in $1.6bn lawsuit against Fox Judge rebukes Fox News ahead of defamation trial Fox defamation trial delayed amid settlement talks Police officer suspended after airport kicking video Ukraine thrown into war's bleak future as drones open new battlefront Aniston hits back at 'childless' remark by Trump's VP pick Charli XCX and Beth Gibbons up for Mercury Prize A visual guide to the Olympics Could you keep up with Hodgkinson's 800m pace? Biden sidesteps hard truths in first speech since quitting race Can Deadpool and Wolverine spark Marvel's revival? Would-be reality TV contestants 'not looking real' I remortgaged my house to move into a shipping container The Charlotte Dujardin case explained Namibia turns the visa tables on Western nations Breaking the golden rule of train travel Who will âsashay awayâ first? The final landing at Nicosia Airport The victims 'still fight for justice' © 2024 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
User comment:
|
Fox News, Website
|
Huh. Nothing whatsoever on fox News website.
|
News article:
Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. The setting sun illuminates the Supreme Court building on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Jan. 10, 2023. The Supreme Court is allowing New York to continue to enforce a sweeping new gun law banning guns from “sensitive places” for now while a court challenge plays out. The justices on Jan. 11 turned away a plea by the law’s challengers. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky) FILE - A traffic sign on the corner of 42nd Street and 6th Avenue announces Times Square as a gun free zone, Oct. 11, 2022, in New York. The Supreme Court is allowing New York to continue to enforce a sweeping new gun law banning guns from “sensitive places” for now while a court challenge plays out. The justices on Jan. 11, 2023, turned away a plea by the law’s challengers. (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer, File) FILE - A sign reading “Gun Free Zone” is posted near around Times Square, Aug. 31, 2022, in New York. The Supreme Court is allowing New York to continue to enforce a sweeping new gun law banning guns from “sensitive places” for now while a court challenge plays out. The justices on Jan. 11, 2023, turned away a plea by the law’s challengers. (AP Photo/Yuki Iwamura, File) WASHINGTON (AP) — New York can for now continue to enforce a sweeping new law that bans guns from “sensitive places” including schools, playgrounds and Times Square, the Supreme Court said Wednesday, allowing the law to be in force while a lawsuit over it plays out. The justices turned away an emergency request by New York gun owners challenging the law. The gun owners wanted the high court to lift a federal appeals court order that had permitted the law to be in effect. The appeals court hasn’t finished its review of the case, and justices are often reluctant to weigh in under those circumstances. The justices could still consider the case and the law more generally in the future. In a two-paragraph statement that accompanied the court’s order, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the New York law at issue in the case “presents novel and serious questions.” But Alito, writing for himself and fellow conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, said they understood the court’s decision not to intervene now “to reflect respect” for the appeals court’s “procedures in managing its own docket, rather than expressing any view on the merits of the case.” In a statement, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul cheered the court’s action. “I’m pleased that this Supreme Court order will allow us to continue enforcing the gun laws we put in place to do just that. We believe that these thoughtful, sensible regulations will help to prevent gun violence,” she said.
The law’s challengers, meanwhile, underscored that their efforts would continue. In a statement, Gun Owners of America Senior Vice President Erich Pratt said that while his group had “hoped for immediate relief” they found Alito’s statement “incredibly reassuring” and “look forward to continuing the fight against New York’s draconian law.” New York lawmakers rewrote the state’s handgun laws over the summer after a June Supreme Court ruling invalidated New York’s old system for granting permits to carry handguns outside the home. The ruling said that Americans have a right to carry firearms in public for self-defense, invalidating the New York law, which required people to show a specific need to get a license to carry a gun outside the home. The ruling was a major expansion of gun rights nationwide and resulted in challenges to other, similar state laws. The new law New York passed in the wake of the ruling broadly expanded who can get a license to carry a handgun, but it increased training requirements for applicants and required people seeking a license to provide more information including a list of their social media accounts. Applicants for a license must also demonstrate “good moral character.” Beyond that, the law included a long list of “sensitive places” where firearms are banned, among them: schools, playgrounds, places of worship, entertainment venues, places that serve alcohol and Times Square. U.S. District Judge Glenn Suddaby, however, declared multiple portions of the law unconstitutional and issued a preliminary injunction barring certain provisions’ enforcement. For example, Suddaby blocked portions of the law requiring applicants for a concealed carry license to show “good moral character” and to hand over information about their social media accounts. He also blocked parts of the law barring guns from theaters, parks, zoos and places where alcohol is served. His decision kept in place, however, provisions barring guns at schools and playgrounds, among other things, because of historical support for those restrictions. He also kept in place the ban on guns in Times Square. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit had put Suddaby’s ruling on hold while it considers the case. Challengers to the law had asked the high court to step in and allow Suddaby’s ruling to go into effect while the case continues. It was that request the justices declined. Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
User comment:
|
Laws, Target, Baffle
|
Im always baffled when people think laws like this will stop the people they are trying to target.
|
News article:
Former NFL defensive lineman Chris Smith has died at 31 Former NFL star Chris Smith has died, his agent announced on Twitter, external. He was 31. Smith, who was a former defensive lineman for the Cleveland Browns, spent eight years in the NFL and played for multiple teams including the Jacksonville Jaguars, the Cincinnati Bengals and the Las Vegas Raiders. His cause of death was not immediately known. On social media, tributes poured in for the former player. "Chris was one of the kindest people, team-mates and friends we've had in our organisation," the Browns team wrote on Twitter. Smith began his NFL career in 2014 when he was drafted by the Jacksonville Jaguars as a defensive lineman. But his personal life was marred by tragedy. In 2019, his girlfriend Petara Cordero was killed in a car accident just weeks after giving birth to their child. Chris Smith played for multiple teams in the NFL including the Cleveland Browns Tony Khan, son of Jacksonville Jaguars owner Shahid Khan, described Smith, external as a "great team-mate and friend". "He suffered a tragic loss," he wrote on Twitter. "I hope they are reunited in Heaven." Smith spent three seasons with the Jaguars before going on to play for the Cincinnati Bengals and the Cleveland Browns. But before he joined the NFL, he was a hometown hero and star of his North Carolina high school football team, according to a local newspaper. "He had been the ultimate give-back guy and had been a generous donor to local schools and projects," the Salisbury Post wrote in an obituary, external. Police officer suspended after airport kicking video Ukraine thrown into war's bleak future as drones open new battlefront Aniston hits back at 'childless' remark by Trump's VP pick Charli XCX and Beth Gibbons up for Mercury Prize A visual guide to the Olympics Could you keep up with Hodgkinson's 800m pace? Biden sidesteps hard truths in first speech since quitting race Can Deadpool and Wolverine spark Marvel's revival? Would-be reality TV contestants 'not looking real' I remortgaged my house to move into a shipping container The Charlotte Dujardin case explained Namibia turns the visa tables on Western nations Breaking the golden rule of train travel Who will âsashay awayâ first? The final landing at Nicosia Airport The victims 'still fight for justice' © 2024 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
User comment:
|
Tragedy, Child, Draft
|
His poor child:
> Smith began his NFL career in 2014 when he was drafted by the Jacksonville Jaguars as a defensive lineman. But his personal life was marred by tragedy. In 2019, his girlfriend Petara Cordero was killed in a car accident just weeks after giving birth to their child.
Heartbreaking.
|
News article:
A woman has filed a lawsuit against Aerosmith lead singer Steven Tyler, alleging sexual assault, coercion of an abortion and involuntary infamy in the 1970s when she was a minor and he was in his mid-20s.
Attorneys for Julia Misley, formerly known as Julia Holcomb, filed the lawsuit on Tuesday in Los Angeles County. The suit was filed under the California Child Victims Act, which allows survivors of childhood sexual abuse to file civil cases. The three-year “lookback” window ends Saturday.
In a statement, Misley said the change in the law encouraged her to take legal action.
“I want this action to expose an industry that protects celebrity offenders, to cleanse and hold accountable an industry that both exploited and allowed me to be exploited for years, along with so many other naïve and vulnerable kids and adults,” Misley said in a statement.
According to the lawsuit, Misley first met Tyler, referred to as Defendant Doe 1 in the lawsuit, in 1973 after Tyler performed a concert in Portland, Oregon. At the time, Misley was 16 and Tyler was 25.
Related article
Steven Tyler enters treatment after relapsing
The lawsuit alleges that Tyler, now 74, took Misley to his hotel room and “performed various acts of criminal sexual conduct” upon her that night.
The lawsuit alleges, Tyler purchased a plane ticket for Misley to join him in Seattle for the band’s next show. The lawsuit alleges Misley was also abused after that show.
According to the lawsuit, in 1974, Tyler convinced Misley’s mother to “sign over the guardianship of her daughter to him.” Tyler made promises to the mother that he would enroll her in school, help support her and help provide her with better medical care than her mother could provide, according to the lawsuit.
“Defendant Doe 1 did not meaningfully follow through on these promises and instead continued to travel with, assault and provide alcohol and drugs to plaintiff,” the lawsuit alleges.
The suit also alleges that Tyler impregnated Misley and coerced her to have an abortion.
“DEFENDANT DOE 1 (Tyler) pressured and coerced Plaintiff to have an abortion by threatening that he would send her back to her family and cease to support and love her,” according to the lawsuit. “Plaintiff relented and the abortion was performed,” the suit added.
“The complaint that has been prepared by my legal team recites in legal terms the trajectory of my life from early struggles to exploitation by Steven Tyler, the music industry, my escape from that world, my recovery and transformation, my restoration of spirit through faith, the building of a family and the rebuilding of my life,” Misley said in a statement.
Related article
Steven Tyler opens home for abused girls
The lawsuit further alleges that Tyler has “intentionally publicized the acts he perpetrated” on Misley through multiple books that were published describing the assaults.
In a 2011 memoir, “Does the Noise in My Head Bother You?” Tyler writes about being so in love he “almost took a teen bride” whom the book does not identify.
“I went and slept at her parents’ house for a couple of nights and her parents fell in love with me, signed papers over for me to have custody, so I wouldn’t get arrested if I took her out of state. I took her on tour with me,” he wrote.
Tyler’s accuser said the publications retraumatized her and her family.
“I am grateful for this new opportunity to take action and be heard,” Misley said in a statement.
CNN has reached out to representatives for Steven Tyler for comment.
© 2024 Cable News Network. A Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All Rights Reserved. CNN Sans ™ & © 2016 Cable News Network.
User comment:
|
Surprise, Sadness
|
This does not feel like a surprise to me. Sadly.
|
News article:
The suspect allegedly professed neo-Nazi ideologies online. A Michigan suspect who authorities say expressed explicit neo-Nazi and antisemitic ideologies online was arrested Friday by the FBI who alleged he stockpiled weapons and was planning a mass shooting. The United States Attorney's Office for the Western District of Michigan charged Seann Pietila, 19, of Pickford, Michigan with transmitting a communication containing a threat to injure another. Investigators allege the suspect had communicated with another user on Instagram where they expressed strong views against the Jewish population, support for neo-Nazis and idolization of previous mass shooters, according to the criminal complaint. When the FBI searched the suspect's home earlier Friday they found a cache of weapons, a Nazi flag, a ghillie suit, gas masks, and military sniper/survival manuals, the criminal complaint said. A search of the suspect's phone found a message in the Notes app where he had identified a synagogue in East Lansing, a date and a list of equipment, according to the complaint. "Antisemitic threats and violence against our Jewish communities -- or any other group for that matter -- will not be tolerated in the Western District of Michigan," U.S. Attorney Mark Totten said in a statement. "Today and every day we take all credible threats seriously. Attorney information for the suspect wasn't immediately available. The suspect's mother, Brittany Stob, told ABC News in a phone call on Saturday that her son is still in jail pending a detention hearing next week. Stob asserted she believes her 19-year-old son is not violent and was not truly planning an attack, as alleged by federal prosecutors. "He said some stuff online that he shouldn't have," Stob said. "He's a good kid. He would never hurt anybody." Stob also said the guns and tactical gear seized by the FBI in the search of Pietila's home this week belonged to her and her husband, not her son. Stob said her son began consuming antisemitic content online when he was isolated during the pandemic and didn't have access to the mental health treatment he needed. The FBI said it received a report Tuesday about threatening communications made online, the complaint said. Meta provided investigators with information related to the user name associated with the threats and the FBI alleges it found several messages by the user, who was later identified as the suspect, making antisemitic slurs, and praising neo-Nazi ideology. The suspect allegedly talked about his admiration for the 2019 Christchurch mass shooting in New Zealand, according to the criminal complaint. The date allegedly found on the notes app was the fifth anniversary of the New Zealand shooting. Further investigation into the suspect's social media accounts found other images and posts that included posts of Nazi imagery and other mass shooters, the complaint said. Among the contraband allegedly found in the suspect's home during the search warrant were magazines, a shotgun, a rifle, a pistol, various knives and firearms accessories, according to the complaint. "No American should face threats against them based on their race or religion," James A. Tarasca, the Special Agent in Charge of the FBI in Michigan said in a statement. "Crimes like the one alleged in this complaint have a profound effect not only on the intended target, but on their entire community." 24/7 coverage of breaking news and live events
User comment:
|
FBI, Dismantle, Mass shootings
|
The desire of the right to dismantle the FBI needs to be talked about more. If that happens, we're in for a lot more mass shootings.
|
News article:
Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. The setting sun illuminates the Supreme Court building on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Jan. 10, 2023. The Supreme Court is allowing New York to continue to enforce a sweeping new gun law banning guns from “sensitive places” for now while a court challenge plays out. The justices on Jan. 11 turned away a plea by the law’s challengers. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky) FILE - A traffic sign on the corner of 42nd Street and 6th Avenue announces Times Square as a gun free zone, Oct. 11, 2022, in New York. The Supreme Court is allowing New York to continue to enforce a sweeping new gun law banning guns from “sensitive places” for now while a court challenge plays out. The justices on Jan. 11, 2023, turned away a plea by the law’s challengers. (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer, File) FILE - A sign reading “Gun Free Zone” is posted near around Times Square, Aug. 31, 2022, in New York. The Supreme Court is allowing New York to continue to enforce a sweeping new gun law banning guns from “sensitive places” for now while a court challenge plays out. The justices on Jan. 11, 2023, turned away a plea by the law’s challengers. (AP Photo/Yuki Iwamura, File) WASHINGTON (AP) — New York can for now continue to enforce a sweeping new law that bans guns from “sensitive places” including schools, playgrounds and Times Square, the Supreme Court said Wednesday, allowing the law to be in force while a lawsuit over it plays out. The justices turned away an emergency request by New York gun owners challenging the law. The gun owners wanted the high court to lift a federal appeals court order that had permitted the law to be in effect. The appeals court hasn’t finished its review of the case, and justices are often reluctant to weigh in under those circumstances. The justices could still consider the case and the law more generally in the future. In a two-paragraph statement that accompanied the court’s order, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the New York law at issue in the case “presents novel and serious questions.” But Alito, writing for himself and fellow conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, said they understood the court’s decision not to intervene now “to reflect respect” for the appeals court’s “procedures in managing its own docket, rather than expressing any view on the merits of the case.” In a statement, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul cheered the court’s action. “I’m pleased that this Supreme Court order will allow us to continue enforcing the gun laws we put in place to do just that. We believe that these thoughtful, sensible regulations will help to prevent gun violence,” she said.
The law’s challengers, meanwhile, underscored that their efforts would continue. In a statement, Gun Owners of America Senior Vice President Erich Pratt said that while his group had “hoped for immediate relief” they found Alito’s statement “incredibly reassuring” and “look forward to continuing the fight against New York’s draconian law.” New York lawmakers rewrote the state’s handgun laws over the summer after a June Supreme Court ruling invalidated New York’s old system for granting permits to carry handguns outside the home. The ruling said that Americans have a right to carry firearms in public for self-defense, invalidating the New York law, which required people to show a specific need to get a license to carry a gun outside the home. The ruling was a major expansion of gun rights nationwide and resulted in challenges to other, similar state laws. The new law New York passed in the wake of the ruling broadly expanded who can get a license to carry a handgun, but it increased training requirements for applicants and required people seeking a license to provide more information including a list of their social media accounts. Applicants for a license must also demonstrate “good moral character.” Beyond that, the law included a long list of “sensitive places” where firearms are banned, among them: schools, playgrounds, places of worship, entertainment venues, places that serve alcohol and Times Square. U.S. District Judge Glenn Suddaby, however, declared multiple portions of the law unconstitutional and issued a preliminary injunction barring certain provisions’ enforcement. For example, Suddaby blocked portions of the law requiring applicants for a concealed carry license to show “good moral character” and to hand over information about their social media accounts. He also blocked parts of the law barring guns from theaters, parks, zoos and places where alcohol is served. His decision kept in place, however, provisions barring guns at schools and playgrounds, among other things, because of historical support for those restrictions. He also kept in place the ban on guns in Times Square. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit had put Suddaby’s ruling on hold while it considers the case. Challengers to the law had asked the high court to step in and allow Suddaby’s ruling to go into effect while the case continues. It was that request the justices declined. Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
User comment:
|
Second amendment, Social media, Law challenge
|
I just don't see how a law that requires the handing over of social media accounts to police to exercise what the Supreme Court has deemed to be a right under the Second Amendment will stand for any length of time to any real challenge.
Like, imagine having to do that to speak at a public forum or vote.
|
News article:
Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. The setting sun illuminates the Supreme Court building on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Jan. 10, 2023. The Supreme Court is allowing New York to continue to enforce a sweeping new gun law banning guns from “sensitive places” for now while a court challenge plays out. The justices on Jan. 11 turned away a plea by the law’s challengers. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky) FILE - A traffic sign on the corner of 42nd Street and 6th Avenue announces Times Square as a gun free zone, Oct. 11, 2022, in New York. The Supreme Court is allowing New York to continue to enforce a sweeping new gun law banning guns from “sensitive places” for now while a court challenge plays out. The justices on Jan. 11, 2023, turned away a plea by the law’s challengers. (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer, File) FILE - A sign reading “Gun Free Zone” is posted near around Times Square, Aug. 31, 2022, in New York. The Supreme Court is allowing New York to continue to enforce a sweeping new gun law banning guns from “sensitive places” for now while a court challenge plays out. The justices on Jan. 11, 2023, turned away a plea by the law’s challengers. (AP Photo/Yuki Iwamura, File) WASHINGTON (AP) — New York can for now continue to enforce a sweeping new law that bans guns from “sensitive places” including schools, playgrounds and Times Square, the Supreme Court said Wednesday, allowing the law to be in force while a lawsuit over it plays out. The justices turned away an emergency request by New York gun owners challenging the law. The gun owners wanted the high court to lift a federal appeals court order that had permitted the law to be in effect. The appeals court hasn’t finished its review of the case, and justices are often reluctant to weigh in under those circumstances. The justices could still consider the case and the law more generally in the future. In a two-paragraph statement that accompanied the court’s order, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the New York law at issue in the case “presents novel and serious questions.” But Alito, writing for himself and fellow conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, said they understood the court’s decision not to intervene now “to reflect respect” for the appeals court’s “procedures in managing its own docket, rather than expressing any view on the merits of the case.” In a statement, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul cheered the court’s action. “I’m pleased that this Supreme Court order will allow us to continue enforcing the gun laws we put in place to do just that. We believe that these thoughtful, sensible regulations will help to prevent gun violence,” she said.
The law’s challengers, meanwhile, underscored that their efforts would continue. In a statement, Gun Owners of America Senior Vice President Erich Pratt said that while his group had “hoped for immediate relief” they found Alito’s statement “incredibly reassuring” and “look forward to continuing the fight against New York’s draconian law.” New York lawmakers rewrote the state’s handgun laws over the summer after a June Supreme Court ruling invalidated New York’s old system for granting permits to carry handguns outside the home. The ruling said that Americans have a right to carry firearms in public for self-defense, invalidating the New York law, which required people to show a specific need to get a license to carry a gun outside the home. The ruling was a major expansion of gun rights nationwide and resulted in challenges to other, similar state laws. The new law New York passed in the wake of the ruling broadly expanded who can get a license to carry a handgun, but it increased training requirements for applicants and required people seeking a license to provide more information including a list of their social media accounts. Applicants for a license must also demonstrate “good moral character.” Beyond that, the law included a long list of “sensitive places” where firearms are banned, among them: schools, playgrounds, places of worship, entertainment venues, places that serve alcohol and Times Square. U.S. District Judge Glenn Suddaby, however, declared multiple portions of the law unconstitutional and issued a preliminary injunction barring certain provisions’ enforcement. For example, Suddaby blocked portions of the law requiring applicants for a concealed carry license to show “good moral character” and to hand over information about their social media accounts. He also blocked parts of the law barring guns from theaters, parks, zoos and places where alcohol is served. His decision kept in place, however, provisions barring guns at schools and playgrounds, among other things, because of historical support for those restrictions. He also kept in place the ban on guns in Times Square. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit had put Suddaby’s ruling on hold while it considers the case. Challengers to the law had asked the high court to step in and allow Suddaby’s ruling to go into effect while the case continues. It was that request the justices declined. Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
User comment:
|
NRA, Guns, Event, Support
|
Last year the NRA banned guns at an NRA event Trump attended. The NRA obvipusly support such laws
|
News article:
Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. The setting sun illuminates the Supreme Court building on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Jan. 10, 2023. The Supreme Court is allowing New York to continue to enforce a sweeping new gun law banning guns from “sensitive places” for now while a court challenge plays out. The justices on Jan. 11 turned away a plea by the law’s challengers. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky) FILE - A traffic sign on the corner of 42nd Street and 6th Avenue announces Times Square as a gun free zone, Oct. 11, 2022, in New York. The Supreme Court is allowing New York to continue to enforce a sweeping new gun law banning guns from “sensitive places” for now while a court challenge plays out. The justices on Jan. 11, 2023, turned away a plea by the law’s challengers. (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer, File) FILE - A sign reading “Gun Free Zone” is posted near around Times Square, Aug. 31, 2022, in New York. The Supreme Court is allowing New York to continue to enforce a sweeping new gun law banning guns from “sensitive places” for now while a court challenge plays out. The justices on Jan. 11, 2023, turned away a plea by the law’s challengers. (AP Photo/Yuki Iwamura, File) WASHINGTON (AP) — New York can for now continue to enforce a sweeping new law that bans guns from “sensitive places” including schools, playgrounds and Times Square, the Supreme Court said Wednesday, allowing the law to be in force while a lawsuit over it plays out. The justices turned away an emergency request by New York gun owners challenging the law. The gun owners wanted the high court to lift a federal appeals court order that had permitted the law to be in effect. The appeals court hasn’t finished its review of the case, and justices are often reluctant to weigh in under those circumstances. The justices could still consider the case and the law more generally in the future. In a two-paragraph statement that accompanied the court’s order, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the New York law at issue in the case “presents novel and serious questions.” But Alito, writing for himself and fellow conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, said they understood the court’s decision not to intervene now “to reflect respect” for the appeals court’s “procedures in managing its own docket, rather than expressing any view on the merits of the case.” In a statement, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul cheered the court’s action. “I’m pleased that this Supreme Court order will allow us to continue enforcing the gun laws we put in place to do just that. We believe that these thoughtful, sensible regulations will help to prevent gun violence,” she said.
The law’s challengers, meanwhile, underscored that their efforts would continue. In a statement, Gun Owners of America Senior Vice President Erich Pratt said that while his group had “hoped for immediate relief” they found Alito’s statement “incredibly reassuring” and “look forward to continuing the fight against New York’s draconian law.” New York lawmakers rewrote the state’s handgun laws over the summer after a June Supreme Court ruling invalidated New York’s old system for granting permits to carry handguns outside the home. The ruling said that Americans have a right to carry firearms in public for self-defense, invalidating the New York law, which required people to show a specific need to get a license to carry a gun outside the home. The ruling was a major expansion of gun rights nationwide and resulted in challenges to other, similar state laws. The new law New York passed in the wake of the ruling broadly expanded who can get a license to carry a handgun, but it increased training requirements for applicants and required people seeking a license to provide more information including a list of their social media accounts. Applicants for a license must also demonstrate “good moral character.” Beyond that, the law included a long list of “sensitive places” where firearms are banned, among them: schools, playgrounds, places of worship, entertainment venues, places that serve alcohol and Times Square. U.S. District Judge Glenn Suddaby, however, declared multiple portions of the law unconstitutional and issued a preliminary injunction barring certain provisions’ enforcement. For example, Suddaby blocked portions of the law requiring applicants for a concealed carry license to show “good moral character” and to hand over information about their social media accounts. He also blocked parts of the law barring guns from theaters, parks, zoos and places where alcohol is served. His decision kept in place, however, provisions barring guns at schools and playgrounds, among other things, because of historical support for those restrictions. He also kept in place the ban on guns in Times Square. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit had put Suddaby’s ruling on hold while it considers the case. Challengers to the law had asked the high court to step in and allow Suddaby’s ruling to go into effect while the case continues. It was that request the justices declined. Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
User comment:
|
Grades, Privilege, Gun murders
|
Ok, since you kept your grades up this semester your mother and I have decided to let you prevent people from murdering each other for now, while we discuss the policy moving forward. Now this is a privilege, don't abuse it. We don't want to see zero gun murders, now do we?
|
News article:
Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. The setting sun illuminates the Supreme Court building on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Jan. 10, 2023. The Supreme Court is allowing New York to continue to enforce a sweeping new gun law banning guns from “sensitive places” for now while a court challenge plays out. The justices on Jan. 11 turned away a plea by the law’s challengers. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky) FILE - A traffic sign on the corner of 42nd Street and 6th Avenue announces Times Square as a gun free zone, Oct. 11, 2022, in New York. The Supreme Court is allowing New York to continue to enforce a sweeping new gun law banning guns from “sensitive places” for now while a court challenge plays out. The justices on Jan. 11, 2023, turned away a plea by the law’s challengers. (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer, File) FILE - A sign reading “Gun Free Zone” is posted near around Times Square, Aug. 31, 2022, in New York. The Supreme Court is allowing New York to continue to enforce a sweeping new gun law banning guns from “sensitive places” for now while a court challenge plays out. The justices on Jan. 11, 2023, turned away a plea by the law’s challengers. (AP Photo/Yuki Iwamura, File) WASHINGTON (AP) — New York can for now continue to enforce a sweeping new law that bans guns from “sensitive places” including schools, playgrounds and Times Square, the Supreme Court said Wednesday, allowing the law to be in force while a lawsuit over it plays out. The justices turned away an emergency request by New York gun owners challenging the law. The gun owners wanted the high court to lift a federal appeals court order that had permitted the law to be in effect. The appeals court hasn’t finished its review of the case, and justices are often reluctant to weigh in under those circumstances. The justices could still consider the case and the law more generally in the future. In a two-paragraph statement that accompanied the court’s order, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the New York law at issue in the case “presents novel and serious questions.” But Alito, writing for himself and fellow conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, said they understood the court’s decision not to intervene now “to reflect respect” for the appeals court’s “procedures in managing its own docket, rather than expressing any view on the merits of the case.” In a statement, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul cheered the court’s action. “I’m pleased that this Supreme Court order will allow us to continue enforcing the gun laws we put in place to do just that. We believe that these thoughtful, sensible regulations will help to prevent gun violence,” she said.
The law’s challengers, meanwhile, underscored that their efforts would continue. In a statement, Gun Owners of America Senior Vice President Erich Pratt said that while his group had “hoped for immediate relief” they found Alito’s statement “incredibly reassuring” and “look forward to continuing the fight against New York’s draconian law.” New York lawmakers rewrote the state’s handgun laws over the summer after a June Supreme Court ruling invalidated New York’s old system for granting permits to carry handguns outside the home. The ruling said that Americans have a right to carry firearms in public for self-defense, invalidating the New York law, which required people to show a specific need to get a license to carry a gun outside the home. The ruling was a major expansion of gun rights nationwide and resulted in challenges to other, similar state laws. The new law New York passed in the wake of the ruling broadly expanded who can get a license to carry a handgun, but it increased training requirements for applicants and required people seeking a license to provide more information including a list of their social media accounts. Applicants for a license must also demonstrate “good moral character.” Beyond that, the law included a long list of “sensitive places” where firearms are banned, among them: schools, playgrounds, places of worship, entertainment venues, places that serve alcohol and Times Square. U.S. District Judge Glenn Suddaby, however, declared multiple portions of the law unconstitutional and issued a preliminary injunction barring certain provisions’ enforcement. For example, Suddaby blocked portions of the law requiring applicants for a concealed carry license to show “good moral character” and to hand over information about their social media accounts. He also blocked parts of the law barring guns from theaters, parks, zoos and places where alcohol is served. His decision kept in place, however, provisions barring guns at schools and playgrounds, among other things, because of historical support for those restrictions. He also kept in place the ban on guns in Times Square. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit had put Suddaby’s ruling on hold while it considers the case. Challengers to the law had asked the high court to step in and allow Suddaby’s ruling to go into effect while the case continues. It was that request the justices declined. Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
User comment:
|
Gun laws, Supreme Court, Common sense
|
> New York lawmakers rewrote the state’s handgun laws over the summer after a June Supreme Court ruling invalidated New York’s old system for granting permits to carry handguns outside the home. The ruling said that Americans have a right to carry firearms in public for self-defense, invalidating the New York law, which required people to show a specific need to get a license to carry a gun outside the home. The ruling was a major expansion of gun rights nationwide and resulted in challenges to other, similar state laws.
> The new law New York passed in the wake of the ruling broadly expanded who can get a license to carry a handgun, but it increased training requirements for applicants and required people seeking a license to provide more information including a list of their social media accounts. Applicants for a license must also demonstrate “good moral character.” Beyond that, the law included a long list of “sensitive places” where firearms are banned, among them: schools, playgrounds, places of worship, entertainment venues, places that serve alcohol and Times Square.
These seem like common sense gun laws…
Supreme Court is probably going to still weigh in if the appeals court decides to allow these laws though, they’re just waiting for their turn instead of intervening in the appeals court’s job.
|
News article:
A woman has filed a lawsuit against Aerosmith lead singer Steven Tyler, alleging sexual assault, coercion of an abortion and involuntary infamy in the 1970s when she was a minor and he was in his mid-20s.
Attorneys for Julia Misley, formerly known as Julia Holcomb, filed the lawsuit on Tuesday in Los Angeles County. The suit was filed under the California Child Victims Act, which allows survivors of childhood sexual abuse to file civil cases. The three-year “lookback” window ends Saturday.
In a statement, Misley said the change in the law encouraged her to take legal action.
“I want this action to expose an industry that protects celebrity offenders, to cleanse and hold accountable an industry that both exploited and allowed me to be exploited for years, along with so many other naïve and vulnerable kids and adults,” Misley said in a statement.
According to the lawsuit, Misley first met Tyler, referred to as Defendant Doe 1 in the lawsuit, in 1973 after Tyler performed a concert in Portland, Oregon. At the time, Misley was 16 and Tyler was 25.
Related article
Steven Tyler enters treatment after relapsing
The lawsuit alleges that Tyler, now 74, took Misley to his hotel room and “performed various acts of criminal sexual conduct” upon her that night.
The lawsuit alleges, Tyler purchased a plane ticket for Misley to join him in Seattle for the band’s next show. The lawsuit alleges Misley was also abused after that show.
According to the lawsuit, in 1974, Tyler convinced Misley’s mother to “sign over the guardianship of her daughter to him.” Tyler made promises to the mother that he would enroll her in school, help support her and help provide her with better medical care than her mother could provide, according to the lawsuit.
“Defendant Doe 1 did not meaningfully follow through on these promises and instead continued to travel with, assault and provide alcohol and drugs to plaintiff,” the lawsuit alleges.
The suit also alleges that Tyler impregnated Misley and coerced her to have an abortion.
“DEFENDANT DOE 1 (Tyler) pressured and coerced Plaintiff to have an abortion by threatening that he would send her back to her family and cease to support and love her,” according to the lawsuit. “Plaintiff relented and the abortion was performed,” the suit added.
“The complaint that has been prepared by my legal team recites in legal terms the trajectory of my life from early struggles to exploitation by Steven Tyler, the music industry, my escape from that world, my recovery and transformation, my restoration of spirit through faith, the building of a family and the rebuilding of my life,” Misley said in a statement.
Related article
Steven Tyler opens home for abused girls
The lawsuit further alleges that Tyler has “intentionally publicized the acts he perpetrated” on Misley through multiple books that were published describing the assaults.
In a 2011 memoir, “Does the Noise in My Head Bother You?” Tyler writes about being so in love he “almost took a teen bride” whom the book does not identify.
“I went and slept at her parents’ house for a couple of nights and her parents fell in love with me, signed papers over for me to have custody, so I wouldn’t get arrested if I took her out of state. I took her on tour with me,” he wrote.
Tyler’s accuser said the publications retraumatized her and her family.
“I am grateful for this new opportunity to take action and be heard,” Misley said in a statement.
CNN has reached out to representatives for Steven Tyler for comment.
© 2024 Cable News Network. A Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All Rights Reserved. CNN Sans ™ & © 2016 Cable News Network.
User comment:
|
Parents, Guardianship, Quality
|
Her parents signed over guardianship? They sound like quality people. /s
|
News article:
Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. The setting sun illuminates the Supreme Court building on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Jan. 10, 2023. The Supreme Court is allowing New York to continue to enforce a sweeping new gun law banning guns from “sensitive places” for now while a court challenge plays out. The justices on Jan. 11 turned away a plea by the law’s challengers. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky) FILE - A traffic sign on the corner of 42nd Street and 6th Avenue announces Times Square as a gun free zone, Oct. 11, 2022, in New York. The Supreme Court is allowing New York to continue to enforce a sweeping new gun law banning guns from “sensitive places” for now while a court challenge plays out. The justices on Jan. 11, 2023, turned away a plea by the law’s challengers. (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer, File) FILE - A sign reading “Gun Free Zone” is posted near around Times Square, Aug. 31, 2022, in New York. The Supreme Court is allowing New York to continue to enforce a sweeping new gun law banning guns from “sensitive places” for now while a court challenge plays out. The justices on Jan. 11, 2023, turned away a plea by the law’s challengers. (AP Photo/Yuki Iwamura, File) WASHINGTON (AP) — New York can for now continue to enforce a sweeping new law that bans guns from “sensitive places” including schools, playgrounds and Times Square, the Supreme Court said Wednesday, allowing the law to be in force while a lawsuit over it plays out. The justices turned away an emergency request by New York gun owners challenging the law. The gun owners wanted the high court to lift a federal appeals court order that had permitted the law to be in effect. The appeals court hasn’t finished its review of the case, and justices are often reluctant to weigh in under those circumstances. The justices could still consider the case and the law more generally in the future. In a two-paragraph statement that accompanied the court’s order, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the New York law at issue in the case “presents novel and serious questions.” But Alito, writing for himself and fellow conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, said they understood the court’s decision not to intervene now “to reflect respect” for the appeals court’s “procedures in managing its own docket, rather than expressing any view on the merits of the case.” In a statement, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul cheered the court’s action. “I’m pleased that this Supreme Court order will allow us to continue enforcing the gun laws we put in place to do just that. We believe that these thoughtful, sensible regulations will help to prevent gun violence,” she said.
The law’s challengers, meanwhile, underscored that their efforts would continue. In a statement, Gun Owners of America Senior Vice President Erich Pratt said that while his group had “hoped for immediate relief” they found Alito’s statement “incredibly reassuring” and “look forward to continuing the fight against New York’s draconian law.” New York lawmakers rewrote the state’s handgun laws over the summer after a June Supreme Court ruling invalidated New York’s old system for granting permits to carry handguns outside the home. The ruling said that Americans have a right to carry firearms in public for self-defense, invalidating the New York law, which required people to show a specific need to get a license to carry a gun outside the home. The ruling was a major expansion of gun rights nationwide and resulted in challenges to other, similar state laws. The new law New York passed in the wake of the ruling broadly expanded who can get a license to carry a handgun, but it increased training requirements for applicants and required people seeking a license to provide more information including a list of their social media accounts. Applicants for a license must also demonstrate “good moral character.” Beyond that, the law included a long list of “sensitive places” where firearms are banned, among them: schools, playgrounds, places of worship, entertainment venues, places that serve alcohol and Times Square. U.S. District Judge Glenn Suddaby, however, declared multiple portions of the law unconstitutional and issued a preliminary injunction barring certain provisions’ enforcement. For example, Suddaby blocked portions of the law requiring applicants for a concealed carry license to show “good moral character” and to hand over information about their social media accounts. He also blocked parts of the law barring guns from theaters, parks, zoos and places where alcohol is served. His decision kept in place, however, provisions barring guns at schools and playgrounds, among other things, because of historical support for those restrictions. He also kept in place the ban on guns in Times Square. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit had put Suddaby’s ruling on hold while it considers the case. Challengers to the law had asked the high court to step in and allow Suddaby’s ruling to go into effect while the case continues. It was that request the justices declined. Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
User comment:
|
Safety, New York, Criminals, Handguns
|
Fantastic. Now I can feel safer traveling in New York knowing there aren’t any criminals with handguns
|
News article:
A woman has filed a lawsuit against Aerosmith lead singer Steven Tyler, alleging sexual assault, coercion of an abortion and involuntary infamy in the 1970s when she was a minor and he was in his mid-20s.
Attorneys for Julia Misley, formerly known as Julia Holcomb, filed the lawsuit on Tuesday in Los Angeles County. The suit was filed under the California Child Victims Act, which allows survivors of childhood sexual abuse to file civil cases. The three-year “lookback” window ends Saturday.
In a statement, Misley said the change in the law encouraged her to take legal action.
“I want this action to expose an industry that protects celebrity offenders, to cleanse and hold accountable an industry that both exploited and allowed me to be exploited for years, along with so many other naïve and vulnerable kids and adults,” Misley said in a statement.
According to the lawsuit, Misley first met Tyler, referred to as Defendant Doe 1 in the lawsuit, in 1973 after Tyler performed a concert in Portland, Oregon. At the time, Misley was 16 and Tyler was 25.
Related article
Steven Tyler enters treatment after relapsing
The lawsuit alleges that Tyler, now 74, took Misley to his hotel room and “performed various acts of criminal sexual conduct” upon her that night.
The lawsuit alleges, Tyler purchased a plane ticket for Misley to join him in Seattle for the band’s next show. The lawsuit alleges Misley was also abused after that show.
According to the lawsuit, in 1974, Tyler convinced Misley’s mother to “sign over the guardianship of her daughter to him.” Tyler made promises to the mother that he would enroll her in school, help support her and help provide her with better medical care than her mother could provide, according to the lawsuit.
“Defendant Doe 1 did not meaningfully follow through on these promises and instead continued to travel with, assault and provide alcohol and drugs to plaintiff,” the lawsuit alleges.
The suit also alleges that Tyler impregnated Misley and coerced her to have an abortion.
“DEFENDANT DOE 1 (Tyler) pressured and coerced Plaintiff to have an abortion by threatening that he would send her back to her family and cease to support and love her,” according to the lawsuit. “Plaintiff relented and the abortion was performed,” the suit added.
“The complaint that has been prepared by my legal team recites in legal terms the trajectory of my life from early struggles to exploitation by Steven Tyler, the music industry, my escape from that world, my recovery and transformation, my restoration of spirit through faith, the building of a family and the rebuilding of my life,” Misley said in a statement.
Related article
Steven Tyler opens home for abused girls
The lawsuit further alleges that Tyler has “intentionally publicized the acts he perpetrated” on Misley through multiple books that were published describing the assaults.
In a 2011 memoir, “Does the Noise in My Head Bother You?” Tyler writes about being so in love he “almost took a teen bride” whom the book does not identify.
“I went and slept at her parents’ house for a couple of nights and her parents fell in love with me, signed papers over for me to have custody, so I wouldn’t get arrested if I took her out of state. I took her on tour with me,” he wrote.
Tyler’s accuser said the publications retraumatized her and her family.
“I am grateful for this new opportunity to take action and be heard,” Misley said in a statement.
CNN has reached out to representatives for Steven Tyler for comment.
© 2024 Cable News Network. A Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All Rights Reserved. CNN Sans ™ & © 2016 Cable News Network.
User comment:
|
Celebrity, Molester, Surprise
|
Another celebrity molester? How weird, I’m so surprised
|
News article:
Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. The setting sun illuminates the Supreme Court building on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Jan. 10, 2023. The Supreme Court is allowing New York to continue to enforce a sweeping new gun law banning guns from “sensitive places” for now while a court challenge plays out. The justices on Jan. 11 turned away a plea by the law’s challengers. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky) FILE - A traffic sign on the corner of 42nd Street and 6th Avenue announces Times Square as a gun free zone, Oct. 11, 2022, in New York. The Supreme Court is allowing New York to continue to enforce a sweeping new gun law banning guns from “sensitive places” for now while a court challenge plays out. The justices on Jan. 11, 2023, turned away a plea by the law’s challengers. (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer, File) FILE - A sign reading “Gun Free Zone” is posted near around Times Square, Aug. 31, 2022, in New York. The Supreme Court is allowing New York to continue to enforce a sweeping new gun law banning guns from “sensitive places” for now while a court challenge plays out. The justices on Jan. 11, 2023, turned away a plea by the law’s challengers. (AP Photo/Yuki Iwamura, File) WASHINGTON (AP) — New York can for now continue to enforce a sweeping new law that bans guns from “sensitive places” including schools, playgrounds and Times Square, the Supreme Court said Wednesday, allowing the law to be in force while a lawsuit over it plays out. The justices turned away an emergency request by New York gun owners challenging the law. The gun owners wanted the high court to lift a federal appeals court order that had permitted the law to be in effect. The appeals court hasn’t finished its review of the case, and justices are often reluctant to weigh in under those circumstances. The justices could still consider the case and the law more generally in the future. In a two-paragraph statement that accompanied the court’s order, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the New York law at issue in the case “presents novel and serious questions.” But Alito, writing for himself and fellow conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, said they understood the court’s decision not to intervene now “to reflect respect” for the appeals court’s “procedures in managing its own docket, rather than expressing any view on the merits of the case.” In a statement, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul cheered the court’s action. “I’m pleased that this Supreme Court order will allow us to continue enforcing the gun laws we put in place to do just that. We believe that these thoughtful, sensible regulations will help to prevent gun violence,” she said.
The law’s challengers, meanwhile, underscored that their efforts would continue. In a statement, Gun Owners of America Senior Vice President Erich Pratt said that while his group had “hoped for immediate relief” they found Alito’s statement “incredibly reassuring” and “look forward to continuing the fight against New York’s draconian law.” New York lawmakers rewrote the state’s handgun laws over the summer after a June Supreme Court ruling invalidated New York’s old system for granting permits to carry handguns outside the home. The ruling said that Americans have a right to carry firearms in public for self-defense, invalidating the New York law, which required people to show a specific need to get a license to carry a gun outside the home. The ruling was a major expansion of gun rights nationwide and resulted in challenges to other, similar state laws. The new law New York passed in the wake of the ruling broadly expanded who can get a license to carry a handgun, but it increased training requirements for applicants and required people seeking a license to provide more information including a list of their social media accounts. Applicants for a license must also demonstrate “good moral character.” Beyond that, the law included a long list of “sensitive places” where firearms are banned, among them: schools, playgrounds, places of worship, entertainment venues, places that serve alcohol and Times Square. U.S. District Judge Glenn Suddaby, however, declared multiple portions of the law unconstitutional and issued a preliminary injunction barring certain provisions’ enforcement. For example, Suddaby blocked portions of the law requiring applicants for a concealed carry license to show “good moral character” and to hand over information about their social media accounts. He also blocked parts of the law barring guns from theaters, parks, zoos and places where alcohol is served. His decision kept in place, however, provisions barring guns at schools and playgrounds, among other things, because of historical support for those restrictions. He also kept in place the ban on guns in Times Square. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit had put Suddaby’s ruling on hold while it considers the case. Challengers to the law had asked the high court to step in and allow Suddaby’s ruling to go into effect while the case continues. It was that request the justices declined. Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
User comment:
|
Mass shooters, Social media, Law, Reasonable
|
I just find it odd how often mass shooters have social media that says things like "boy oh boy I wanna shoot all the liberals" and then people act like police are idiots for not noticing.
Yet this law says "Hey, let's actually look at those social media things to make sure they're not saying kill all minorities" but people act like that's unreasonable too.
I accept down votes for this. This law has alot of problems, but I feel the social media thing isn't the most unreasonable part.
|
News article:
Former NFL defensive lineman Chris Smith has died at 31 Former NFL star Chris Smith has died, his agent announced on Twitter, external. He was 31. Smith, who was a former defensive lineman for the Cleveland Browns, spent eight years in the NFL and played for multiple teams including the Jacksonville Jaguars, the Cincinnati Bengals and the Las Vegas Raiders. His cause of death was not immediately known. On social media, tributes poured in for the former player. "Chris was one of the kindest people, team-mates and friends we've had in our organisation," the Browns team wrote on Twitter. Smith began his NFL career in 2014 when he was drafted by the Jacksonville Jaguars as a defensive lineman. But his personal life was marred by tragedy. In 2019, his girlfriend Petara Cordero was killed in a car accident just weeks after giving birth to their child. Chris Smith played for multiple teams in the NFL including the Cleveland Browns Tony Khan, son of Jacksonville Jaguars owner Shahid Khan, described Smith, external as a "great team-mate and friend". "He suffered a tragic loss," he wrote on Twitter. "I hope they are reunited in Heaven." Smith spent three seasons with the Jaguars before going on to play for the Cincinnati Bengals and the Cleveland Browns. But before he joined the NFL, he was a hometown hero and star of his North Carolina high school football team, according to a local newspaper. "He had been the ultimate give-back guy and had been a generous donor to local schools and projects," the Salisbury Post wrote in an obituary, external. Police officer suspended after airport kicking video Ukraine thrown into war's bleak future as drones open new battlefront Aniston hits back at 'childless' remark by Trump's VP pick Charli XCX and Beth Gibbons up for Mercury Prize A visual guide to the Olympics Could you keep up with Hodgkinson's 800m pace? Biden sidesteps hard truths in first speech since quitting race Can Deadpool and Wolverine spark Marvel's revival? Would-be reality TV contestants 'not looking real' I remortgaged my house to move into a shipping container The Charlotte Dujardin case explained Namibia turns the visa tables on Western nations Breaking the golden rule of train travel Who will âsashay awayâ first? The final landing at Nicosia Airport The victims 'still fight for justice' © 2024 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
User comment:
|
Vaccine, Doubt, Death
|
It isn’t known how he died. Why are people so sure it was the vaccine? It could have been literally almost anything.
|
News article:
Some of Fox News' most prominent personalities are expected to testify in the Dominion lawsuit trial Testimony in the highly anticipated defamation trial pitting Dominion Voting Systems against Fox News is set to start - and jurors may be seeing a few familiar faces. Dominion, a voting technology company, is suing Fox for $1.6bn (£1.29bn) in damages, claiming that the TV network knowingly spread falsehoods about the firm's role in the 2020 US election that ousted Donald Trump from the White House. Over the course of the trial, jurors are likely to hear from billionaire Fox owner Rupert Murdoch and immensely popular - and controversial - TV host Tucker Carlson, among an array of other executives and well-known on-air personalities. Jurors will be asked to determine whether Fox showed "actual malice" by knowingly and willingly reporting things that were untrue and potentially damaging for the voting machine maker. Fox denies the claims. In a statement sent to the BBC, the company said the lawsuit "is a political crusade in search of financial windfall" and said Dominion "has pushed irrelevant and misleading information to generate headlines". Here's what we know about some of the key players in the case and how they fit in. Dominion claims that Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch played a key editorial role at Fox News As the trial begins, all eyes will be on Fox Corporation's 91-year-old co-chairman and his son Lachlan, who is the co-chairman and CEO. In the lawsuit, Dominion claims that the two Murdochs held ultimate editorial responsibility during the elections, and allowed falsehoods about Dominion to be spread despite knowing they were untrue. Court documents filed by Dominion after a deposition of the elder Mr Murdoch revealed that he did not believe many of the theories being "endorsed" by some Fox commentators. The big questions in $1.6bn lawsuit against Fox Judge rebukes Fox News ahead of defamation trial In retrospect, he said, he would have liked the company to be "stronger in denouncing it". He also said that he "could have" prevented conspiracy-prone guests from appearing on-air, but did not. Tucker Carlson was privately dismissive of many of the claims against Dominion In the aftermath of the 2020 election, the now 53-year-old TV host broadcast more than 20 episodes of his show that Dominion's lawsuit claims were defamatory. Off-camera, however, Mr Carlson repeatedly dismissed the claims, which he called "absurd" and "insane", according to communications revealed in court documents. Additionally, while he was publicly a vocal supporter of Donald Trump's claims of fraud in the 2020 election, court documents show that he said he hated the former President "passionately" and that he "can't wait" to ignore him. Dominion's lawyers are likely to focus on these inconsistencies in their bid to prove the "actual malice" needed for a successful defamation case. Guests on Sean Hannity's show repeated baseless claims about Dominion Another TV star expected on the stand is Sean Hannity, the host of the popular and his self-titled "Hannity" show on Fox. In court documents, Dominion's lawyers have specifically singled out an episode of the show that aired on 30 November, 2020 in which Mr Hannity had Sidney Powell, a former Trump lawyer, as guest. During the episode, Ms Powell repeated baseless conspiracy theories about Dominion's role in the election. Mr Hannity later said in a deposition that he did not believe Ms Powell's claims "for one second", despite having brought her on his show. Ms Powell, for his part, features heavily in the lawsuit and is among one of three people who repeatedly repeated conspiracy theories on Fox shows, including Mr Hannity's, Mr Carlson's and others. Fox defamation trial delayed amid settlement talks Internal communications show that Fox News employees repeatedly told each other they did not believe many of the allegations. Former House Speaker Paul Ryan became a member of Fox Corporation's Board in 2019 Mr Ryan, 53, served as Speaker of the House of Representatives from 2015 to 2019. In March 2019, he joined the board of the Fox Corporation. According to court documents filed by Dominion, Mr Ryan sent a message to Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch calling for "solid pushback" against outlandish claims in the wake of the 2020 election. "I think we are entering a truly bizarre phase of this where he has actually convinced himself of this farce and will do more bizarre things to delegitimize the election," he said, adding that he saw the election as an "inflection point" for the network. Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott expressed concern that the network would lose viewers after calling Arizona in Biden's favour Among the top Fox executives expected to testify is Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott. Dominion's court filings single her out as ultimately being "responsible for the content of the shows" on the network, with the "authority to direct shows to not host certain guests or broadcast certain content". On 9 November 2020 - just days after the election - Ms Scott e-mailed Rupert Murdoch to stress upon him the importance of keeping an audience "who loves and trusts" the network, particularly after Fox's decision to call the state of Arizona in Joe Biden's favour. That call, she said, had been "damaging", but could be addressed by an effort to "highlight our stars and plant flags letting the viewers know we hear them, and respect them". Additionally, Dominion's court filings show that the firm alerted Ms Scott, along with several other top Fox executives, that they were airing "verifiably wrong information". Experts have noted that a significant part of Dominion's case will be to show that Fox was repeatedly warned about the falsehoods being shared on-air. The big questions in $1.6bn lawsuit against Fox Judge rebukes Fox News ahead of defamation trial Fox defamation trial delayed amid settlement talks Police officer suspended after airport kicking video Ukraine thrown into war's bleak future as drones open new battlefront Aniston hits back at 'childless' remark by Trump's VP pick Charli XCX and Beth Gibbons up for Mercury Prize A visual guide to the Olympics Could you keep up with Hodgkinson's 800m pace? Biden sidesteps hard truths in first speech since quitting race Can Deadpool and Wolverine spark Marvel's revival? Would-be reality TV contestants 'not looking real' I remortgaged my house to move into a shipping container The Charlotte Dujardin case explained Namibia turns the visa tables on Western nations Breaking the golden rule of train travel Who will âsashay awayâ first? The final landing at Nicosia Airport The victims 'still fight for justice' © 2024 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
User comment:
|
Dominion, Settle, Free press
|
I can't believe Dominion settled. For half. What were we saying about a free press in the United States?
|
News article:
Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. The setting sun illuminates the Supreme Court building on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Jan. 10, 2023. The Supreme Court is allowing New York to continue to enforce a sweeping new gun law banning guns from “sensitive places” for now while a court challenge plays out. The justices on Jan. 11 turned away a plea by the law’s challengers. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky) FILE - A traffic sign on the corner of 42nd Street and 6th Avenue announces Times Square as a gun free zone, Oct. 11, 2022, in New York. The Supreme Court is allowing New York to continue to enforce a sweeping new gun law banning guns from “sensitive places” for now while a court challenge plays out. The justices on Jan. 11, 2023, turned away a plea by the law’s challengers. (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer, File) FILE - A sign reading “Gun Free Zone” is posted near around Times Square, Aug. 31, 2022, in New York. The Supreme Court is allowing New York to continue to enforce a sweeping new gun law banning guns from “sensitive places” for now while a court challenge plays out. The justices on Jan. 11, 2023, turned away a plea by the law’s challengers. (AP Photo/Yuki Iwamura, File) WASHINGTON (AP) — New York can for now continue to enforce a sweeping new law that bans guns from “sensitive places” including schools, playgrounds and Times Square, the Supreme Court said Wednesday, allowing the law to be in force while a lawsuit over it plays out. The justices turned away an emergency request by New York gun owners challenging the law. The gun owners wanted the high court to lift a federal appeals court order that had permitted the law to be in effect. The appeals court hasn’t finished its review of the case, and justices are often reluctant to weigh in under those circumstances. The justices could still consider the case and the law more generally in the future. In a two-paragraph statement that accompanied the court’s order, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the New York law at issue in the case “presents novel and serious questions.” But Alito, writing for himself and fellow conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, said they understood the court’s decision not to intervene now “to reflect respect” for the appeals court’s “procedures in managing its own docket, rather than expressing any view on the merits of the case.” In a statement, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul cheered the court’s action. “I’m pleased that this Supreme Court order will allow us to continue enforcing the gun laws we put in place to do just that. We believe that these thoughtful, sensible regulations will help to prevent gun violence,” she said.
The law’s challengers, meanwhile, underscored that their efforts would continue. In a statement, Gun Owners of America Senior Vice President Erich Pratt said that while his group had “hoped for immediate relief” they found Alito’s statement “incredibly reassuring” and “look forward to continuing the fight against New York’s draconian law.” New York lawmakers rewrote the state’s handgun laws over the summer after a June Supreme Court ruling invalidated New York’s old system for granting permits to carry handguns outside the home. The ruling said that Americans have a right to carry firearms in public for self-defense, invalidating the New York law, which required people to show a specific need to get a license to carry a gun outside the home. The ruling was a major expansion of gun rights nationwide and resulted in challenges to other, similar state laws. The new law New York passed in the wake of the ruling broadly expanded who can get a license to carry a handgun, but it increased training requirements for applicants and required people seeking a license to provide more information including a list of their social media accounts. Applicants for a license must also demonstrate “good moral character.” Beyond that, the law included a long list of “sensitive places” where firearms are banned, among them: schools, playgrounds, places of worship, entertainment venues, places that serve alcohol and Times Square. U.S. District Judge Glenn Suddaby, however, declared multiple portions of the law unconstitutional and issued a preliminary injunction barring certain provisions’ enforcement. For example, Suddaby blocked portions of the law requiring applicants for a concealed carry license to show “good moral character” and to hand over information about their social media accounts. He also blocked parts of the law barring guns from theaters, parks, zoos and places where alcohol is served. His decision kept in place, however, provisions barring guns at schools and playgrounds, among other things, because of historical support for those restrictions. He also kept in place the ban on guns in Times Square. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit had put Suddaby’s ruling on hold while it considers the case. Challengers to the law had asked the high court to step in and allow Suddaby’s ruling to go into effect while the case continues. It was that request the justices declined. Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
User comment:
|
SCOTUS, NY laws, Appellate courts, Ruling
|
SCOTUS is letting NY enforce their laws *for now.* What this means is they're waiting their turn before making a ruling and letting the appellate courts do their thing first. This is *NOT* SCOTUS ruling in favor of New York's law here. Stop with the BS headlines.
|
News article:
A woman has filed a lawsuit against Aerosmith lead singer Steven Tyler, alleging sexual assault, coercion of an abortion and involuntary infamy in the 1970s when she was a minor and he was in his mid-20s.
Attorneys for Julia Misley, formerly known as Julia Holcomb, filed the lawsuit on Tuesday in Los Angeles County. The suit was filed under the California Child Victims Act, which allows survivors of childhood sexual abuse to file civil cases. The three-year “lookback” window ends Saturday.
In a statement, Misley said the change in the law encouraged her to take legal action.
“I want this action to expose an industry that protects celebrity offenders, to cleanse and hold accountable an industry that both exploited and allowed me to be exploited for years, along with so many other naïve and vulnerable kids and adults,” Misley said in a statement.
According to the lawsuit, Misley first met Tyler, referred to as Defendant Doe 1 in the lawsuit, in 1973 after Tyler performed a concert in Portland, Oregon. At the time, Misley was 16 and Tyler was 25.
Related article
Steven Tyler enters treatment after relapsing
The lawsuit alleges that Tyler, now 74, took Misley to his hotel room and “performed various acts of criminal sexual conduct” upon her that night.
The lawsuit alleges, Tyler purchased a plane ticket for Misley to join him in Seattle for the band’s next show. The lawsuit alleges Misley was also abused after that show.
According to the lawsuit, in 1974, Tyler convinced Misley’s mother to “sign over the guardianship of her daughter to him.” Tyler made promises to the mother that he would enroll her in school, help support her and help provide her with better medical care than her mother could provide, according to the lawsuit.
“Defendant Doe 1 did not meaningfully follow through on these promises and instead continued to travel with, assault and provide alcohol and drugs to plaintiff,” the lawsuit alleges.
The suit also alleges that Tyler impregnated Misley and coerced her to have an abortion.
“DEFENDANT DOE 1 (Tyler) pressured and coerced Plaintiff to have an abortion by threatening that he would send her back to her family and cease to support and love her,” according to the lawsuit. “Plaintiff relented and the abortion was performed,” the suit added.
“The complaint that has been prepared by my legal team recites in legal terms the trajectory of my life from early struggles to exploitation by Steven Tyler, the music industry, my escape from that world, my recovery and transformation, my restoration of spirit through faith, the building of a family and the rebuilding of my life,” Misley said in a statement.
Related article
Steven Tyler opens home for abused girls
The lawsuit further alleges that Tyler has “intentionally publicized the acts he perpetrated” on Misley through multiple books that were published describing the assaults.
In a 2011 memoir, “Does the Noise in My Head Bother You?” Tyler writes about being so in love he “almost took a teen bride” whom the book does not identify.
“I went and slept at her parents’ house for a couple of nights and her parents fell in love with me, signed papers over for me to have custody, so I wouldn’t get arrested if I took her out of state. I took her on tour with me,” he wrote.
Tyler’s accuser said the publications retraumatized her and her family.
“I am grateful for this new opportunity to take action and be heard,” Misley said in a statement.
CNN has reached out to representatives for Steven Tyler for comment.
© 2024 Cable News Network. A Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All Rights Reserved. CNN Sans ™ & © 2016 Cable News Network.
User comment:
|
Nice guy, Allegations
|
Don't get me wrong, I've heard he's a pretty nice guy in person...
But didn't he have multiple allegations about this kind of thing previously as well? Like, are we at all surprised?
|
News article:
A woman has filed a lawsuit against Aerosmith lead singer Steven Tyler, alleging sexual assault, coercion of an abortion and involuntary infamy in the 1970s when she was a minor and he was in his mid-20s.
Attorneys for Julia Misley, formerly known as Julia Holcomb, filed the lawsuit on Tuesday in Los Angeles County. The suit was filed under the California Child Victims Act, which allows survivors of childhood sexual abuse to file civil cases. The three-year “lookback” window ends Saturday.
In a statement, Misley said the change in the law encouraged her to take legal action.
“I want this action to expose an industry that protects celebrity offenders, to cleanse and hold accountable an industry that both exploited and allowed me to be exploited for years, along with so many other naïve and vulnerable kids and adults,” Misley said in a statement.
According to the lawsuit, Misley first met Tyler, referred to as Defendant Doe 1 in the lawsuit, in 1973 after Tyler performed a concert in Portland, Oregon. At the time, Misley was 16 and Tyler was 25.
Related article
Steven Tyler enters treatment after relapsing
The lawsuit alleges that Tyler, now 74, took Misley to his hotel room and “performed various acts of criminal sexual conduct” upon her that night.
The lawsuit alleges, Tyler purchased a plane ticket for Misley to join him in Seattle for the band’s next show. The lawsuit alleges Misley was also abused after that show.
According to the lawsuit, in 1974, Tyler convinced Misley’s mother to “sign over the guardianship of her daughter to him.” Tyler made promises to the mother that he would enroll her in school, help support her and help provide her with better medical care than her mother could provide, according to the lawsuit.
“Defendant Doe 1 did not meaningfully follow through on these promises and instead continued to travel with, assault and provide alcohol and drugs to plaintiff,” the lawsuit alleges.
The suit also alleges that Tyler impregnated Misley and coerced her to have an abortion.
“DEFENDANT DOE 1 (Tyler) pressured and coerced Plaintiff to have an abortion by threatening that he would send her back to her family and cease to support and love her,” according to the lawsuit. “Plaintiff relented and the abortion was performed,” the suit added.
“The complaint that has been prepared by my legal team recites in legal terms the trajectory of my life from early struggles to exploitation by Steven Tyler, the music industry, my escape from that world, my recovery and transformation, my restoration of spirit through faith, the building of a family and the rebuilding of my life,” Misley said in a statement.
Related article
Steven Tyler opens home for abused girls
The lawsuit further alleges that Tyler has “intentionally publicized the acts he perpetrated” on Misley through multiple books that were published describing the assaults.
In a 2011 memoir, “Does the Noise in My Head Bother You?” Tyler writes about being so in love he “almost took a teen bride” whom the book does not identify.
“I went and slept at her parents’ house for a couple of nights and her parents fell in love with me, signed papers over for me to have custody, so I wouldn’t get arrested if I took her out of state. I took her on tour with me,” he wrote.
Tyler’s accuser said the publications retraumatized her and her family.
“I am grateful for this new opportunity to take action and be heard,” Misley said in a statement.
CNN has reached out to representatives for Steven Tyler for comment.
© 2024 Cable News Network. A Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All Rights Reserved. CNN Sans ™ & © 2016 Cable News Network.
User comment:
|
Suing, Common knowledge, Article
|
Im glad she’s suing but I thought this was relatively common knowledge and has been for a loong time.
I mean here’s a random article about them from almost 12 years ago. http://www.feelnumb.com/2011/01/22/steven-tyler-once-had-14-year-old-girlfriend-that-her-parents-signed-over-to-him/
|
News article:
A woman has filed a lawsuit against Aerosmith lead singer Steven Tyler, alleging sexual assault, coercion of an abortion and involuntary infamy in the 1970s when she was a minor and he was in his mid-20s.
Attorneys for Julia Misley, formerly known as Julia Holcomb, filed the lawsuit on Tuesday in Los Angeles County. The suit was filed under the California Child Victims Act, which allows survivors of childhood sexual abuse to file civil cases. The three-year “lookback” window ends Saturday.
In a statement, Misley said the change in the law encouraged her to take legal action.
“I want this action to expose an industry that protects celebrity offenders, to cleanse and hold accountable an industry that both exploited and allowed me to be exploited for years, along with so many other naïve and vulnerable kids and adults,” Misley said in a statement.
According to the lawsuit, Misley first met Tyler, referred to as Defendant Doe 1 in the lawsuit, in 1973 after Tyler performed a concert in Portland, Oregon. At the time, Misley was 16 and Tyler was 25.
Related article
Steven Tyler enters treatment after relapsing
The lawsuit alleges that Tyler, now 74, took Misley to his hotel room and “performed various acts of criminal sexual conduct” upon her that night.
The lawsuit alleges, Tyler purchased a plane ticket for Misley to join him in Seattle for the band’s next show. The lawsuit alleges Misley was also abused after that show.
According to the lawsuit, in 1974, Tyler convinced Misley’s mother to “sign over the guardianship of her daughter to him.” Tyler made promises to the mother that he would enroll her in school, help support her and help provide her with better medical care than her mother could provide, according to the lawsuit.
“Defendant Doe 1 did not meaningfully follow through on these promises and instead continued to travel with, assault and provide alcohol and drugs to plaintiff,” the lawsuit alleges.
The suit also alleges that Tyler impregnated Misley and coerced her to have an abortion.
“DEFENDANT DOE 1 (Tyler) pressured and coerced Plaintiff to have an abortion by threatening that he would send her back to her family and cease to support and love her,” according to the lawsuit. “Plaintiff relented and the abortion was performed,” the suit added.
“The complaint that has been prepared by my legal team recites in legal terms the trajectory of my life from early struggles to exploitation by Steven Tyler, the music industry, my escape from that world, my recovery and transformation, my restoration of spirit through faith, the building of a family and the rebuilding of my life,” Misley said in a statement.
Related article
Steven Tyler opens home for abused girls
The lawsuit further alleges that Tyler has “intentionally publicized the acts he perpetrated” on Misley through multiple books that were published describing the assaults.
In a 2011 memoir, “Does the Noise in My Head Bother You?” Tyler writes about being so in love he “almost took a teen bride” whom the book does not identify.
“I went and slept at her parents’ house for a couple of nights and her parents fell in love with me, signed papers over for me to have custody, so I wouldn’t get arrested if I took her out of state. I took her on tour with me,” he wrote.
Tyler’s accuser said the publications retraumatized her and her family.
“I am grateful for this new opportunity to take action and be heard,” Misley said in a statement.
CNN has reached out to representatives for Steven Tyler for comment.
© 2024 Cable News Network. A Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All Rights Reserved. CNN Sans ™ & © 2016 Cable News Network.
User comment:
|
Old ass rock types, Engaging, Shit
|
A lot of those old ass rock types were engaging in this shit
|
News article:
A woman has filed a lawsuit against Aerosmith lead singer Steven Tyler, alleging sexual assault, coercion of an abortion and involuntary infamy in the 1970s when she was a minor and he was in his mid-20s.
Attorneys for Julia Misley, formerly known as Julia Holcomb, filed the lawsuit on Tuesday in Los Angeles County. The suit was filed under the California Child Victims Act, which allows survivors of childhood sexual abuse to file civil cases. The three-year “lookback” window ends Saturday.
In a statement, Misley said the change in the law encouraged her to take legal action.
“I want this action to expose an industry that protects celebrity offenders, to cleanse and hold accountable an industry that both exploited and allowed me to be exploited for years, along with so many other naïve and vulnerable kids and adults,” Misley said in a statement.
According to the lawsuit, Misley first met Tyler, referred to as Defendant Doe 1 in the lawsuit, in 1973 after Tyler performed a concert in Portland, Oregon. At the time, Misley was 16 and Tyler was 25.
Related article
Steven Tyler enters treatment after relapsing
The lawsuit alleges that Tyler, now 74, took Misley to his hotel room and “performed various acts of criminal sexual conduct” upon her that night.
The lawsuit alleges, Tyler purchased a plane ticket for Misley to join him in Seattle for the band’s next show. The lawsuit alleges Misley was also abused after that show.
According to the lawsuit, in 1974, Tyler convinced Misley’s mother to “sign over the guardianship of her daughter to him.” Tyler made promises to the mother that he would enroll her in school, help support her and help provide her with better medical care than her mother could provide, according to the lawsuit.
“Defendant Doe 1 did not meaningfully follow through on these promises and instead continued to travel with, assault and provide alcohol and drugs to plaintiff,” the lawsuit alleges.
The suit also alleges that Tyler impregnated Misley and coerced her to have an abortion.
“DEFENDANT DOE 1 (Tyler) pressured and coerced Plaintiff to have an abortion by threatening that he would send her back to her family and cease to support and love her,” according to the lawsuit. “Plaintiff relented and the abortion was performed,” the suit added.
“The complaint that has been prepared by my legal team recites in legal terms the trajectory of my life from early struggles to exploitation by Steven Tyler, the music industry, my escape from that world, my recovery and transformation, my restoration of spirit through faith, the building of a family and the rebuilding of my life,” Misley said in a statement.
Related article
Steven Tyler opens home for abused girls
The lawsuit further alleges that Tyler has “intentionally publicized the acts he perpetrated” on Misley through multiple books that were published describing the assaults.
In a 2011 memoir, “Does the Noise in My Head Bother You?” Tyler writes about being so in love he “almost took a teen bride” whom the book does not identify.
“I went and slept at her parents’ house for a couple of nights and her parents fell in love with me, signed papers over for me to have custody, so I wouldn’t get arrested if I took her out of state. I took her on tour with me,” he wrote.
Tyler’s accuser said the publications retraumatized her and her family.
“I am grateful for this new opportunity to take action and be heard,” Misley said in a statement.
CNN has reached out to representatives for Steven Tyler for comment.
© 2024 Cable News Network. A Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All Rights Reserved. CNN Sans ™ & © 2016 Cable News Network.
User comment:
|
Lawsuit, Child abuse, Celebrity, Exploitation, Accountability
|
Attorneys for Julia Misley, formerly known as Julia Holcomb, filed the lawsuit on Tuesday in Los Angeles County. The suit was filed under the California Child Victims Act, which allows survivors of childhood sexual abuse to file civil cases. The three-year “lookback” window ends Saturday.
In a statement, Misley said the change in the law encouraged her to take legal action.
“I want this action to expose an industry that protects celebrity offenders, to cleanse and hold accountable an industry that both exploited and allowed me to be exploited for years, along with so many other naïve and vulnerable kids and adults,” Misley said in a statement.
According to the lawsuit, Misley first met Tyler, referred to as Defendant Doe 1 in the lawsuit, in 1973 after Tyler performed a concert in Portland, Oregon. At the time, Misley was 16 and Tyler was 25.
|
News article:
Some of Fox News' most prominent personalities are expected to testify in the Dominion lawsuit trial Testimony in the highly anticipated defamation trial pitting Dominion Voting Systems against Fox News is set to start - and jurors may be seeing a few familiar faces. Dominion, a voting technology company, is suing Fox for $1.6bn (£1.29bn) in damages, claiming that the TV network knowingly spread falsehoods about the firm's role in the 2020 US election that ousted Donald Trump from the White House. Over the course of the trial, jurors are likely to hear from billionaire Fox owner Rupert Murdoch and immensely popular - and controversial - TV host Tucker Carlson, among an array of other executives and well-known on-air personalities. Jurors will be asked to determine whether Fox showed "actual malice" by knowingly and willingly reporting things that were untrue and potentially damaging for the voting machine maker. Fox denies the claims. In a statement sent to the BBC, the company said the lawsuit "is a political crusade in search of financial windfall" and said Dominion "has pushed irrelevant and misleading information to generate headlines". Here's what we know about some of the key players in the case and how they fit in. Dominion claims that Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch played a key editorial role at Fox News As the trial begins, all eyes will be on Fox Corporation's 91-year-old co-chairman and his son Lachlan, who is the co-chairman and CEO. In the lawsuit, Dominion claims that the two Murdochs held ultimate editorial responsibility during the elections, and allowed falsehoods about Dominion to be spread despite knowing they were untrue. Court documents filed by Dominion after a deposition of the elder Mr Murdoch revealed that he did not believe many of the theories being "endorsed" by some Fox commentators. The big questions in $1.6bn lawsuit against Fox Judge rebukes Fox News ahead of defamation trial In retrospect, he said, he would have liked the company to be "stronger in denouncing it". He also said that he "could have" prevented conspiracy-prone guests from appearing on-air, but did not. Tucker Carlson was privately dismissive of many of the claims against Dominion In the aftermath of the 2020 election, the now 53-year-old TV host broadcast more than 20 episodes of his show that Dominion's lawsuit claims were defamatory. Off-camera, however, Mr Carlson repeatedly dismissed the claims, which he called "absurd" and "insane", according to communications revealed in court documents. Additionally, while he was publicly a vocal supporter of Donald Trump's claims of fraud in the 2020 election, court documents show that he said he hated the former President "passionately" and that he "can't wait" to ignore him. Dominion's lawyers are likely to focus on these inconsistencies in their bid to prove the "actual malice" needed for a successful defamation case. Guests on Sean Hannity's show repeated baseless claims about Dominion Another TV star expected on the stand is Sean Hannity, the host of the popular and his self-titled "Hannity" show on Fox. In court documents, Dominion's lawyers have specifically singled out an episode of the show that aired on 30 November, 2020 in which Mr Hannity had Sidney Powell, a former Trump lawyer, as guest. During the episode, Ms Powell repeated baseless conspiracy theories about Dominion's role in the election. Mr Hannity later said in a deposition that he did not believe Ms Powell's claims "for one second", despite having brought her on his show. Ms Powell, for his part, features heavily in the lawsuit and is among one of three people who repeatedly repeated conspiracy theories on Fox shows, including Mr Hannity's, Mr Carlson's and others. Fox defamation trial delayed amid settlement talks Internal communications show that Fox News employees repeatedly told each other they did not believe many of the allegations. Former House Speaker Paul Ryan became a member of Fox Corporation's Board in 2019 Mr Ryan, 53, served as Speaker of the House of Representatives from 2015 to 2019. In March 2019, he joined the board of the Fox Corporation. According to court documents filed by Dominion, Mr Ryan sent a message to Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch calling for "solid pushback" against outlandish claims in the wake of the 2020 election. "I think we are entering a truly bizarre phase of this where he has actually convinced himself of this farce and will do more bizarre things to delegitimize the election," he said, adding that he saw the election as an "inflection point" for the network. Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott expressed concern that the network would lose viewers after calling Arizona in Biden's favour Among the top Fox executives expected to testify is Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott. Dominion's court filings single her out as ultimately being "responsible for the content of the shows" on the network, with the "authority to direct shows to not host certain guests or broadcast certain content". On 9 November 2020 - just days after the election - Ms Scott e-mailed Rupert Murdoch to stress upon him the importance of keeping an audience "who loves and trusts" the network, particularly after Fox's decision to call the state of Arizona in Joe Biden's favour. That call, she said, had been "damaging", but could be addressed by an effort to "highlight our stars and plant flags letting the viewers know we hear them, and respect them". Additionally, Dominion's court filings show that the firm alerted Ms Scott, along with several other top Fox executives, that they were airing "verifiably wrong information". Experts have noted that a significant part of Dominion's case will be to show that Fox was repeatedly warned about the falsehoods being shared on-air. The big questions in $1.6bn lawsuit against Fox Judge rebukes Fox News ahead of defamation trial Fox defamation trial delayed amid settlement talks Police officer suspended after airport kicking video Ukraine thrown into war's bleak future as drones open new battlefront Aniston hits back at 'childless' remark by Trump's VP pick Charli XCX and Beth Gibbons up for Mercury Prize A visual guide to the Olympics Could you keep up with Hodgkinson's 800m pace? Biden sidesteps hard truths in first speech since quitting race Can Deadpool and Wolverine spark Marvel's revival? Would-be reality TV contestants 'not looking real' I remortgaged my house to move into a shipping container The Charlotte Dujardin case explained Namibia turns the visa tables on Western nations Breaking the golden rule of train travel Who will âsashay awayâ first? The final landing at Nicosia Airport The victims 'still fight for justice' © 2024 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
User comment:
|
Bullshit, Settlement, Dominion, Money, Fox, Lying, Precedent, Corrective actions, Far right, Damage, Trial
|
This is such bullshit and allows Fox to pay to get off the hook rather than actually fixing anything. It also shows Dominion doesn't actually care about anything but money. Let's review what they a settlement does.
1. By setting all of the redacted communication by Fox execs stating they were aware it was all a lie and were using it to garner more viewers will how not he part of the public record.
2. No precedence has actually been art regarding if a news organization can actually get away with outright lying to the populace or not.
3. There is no actual corrective actions being forced as could have been done by Dominion forcing other changes at Fox regarding their processes as part of the suit.
4. It gives ammo to the far right that it was actually all about money and the Fox did nothing wrong. I can guarantee their defenders if not Tucker himself will be crowing about it tonight.
Jesus Christ I think Dominian has caused MORE damage to our electoral system than if they had just gone to trial and lost. Greedy fucks.
|
News article:
A woman has filed a lawsuit against Aerosmith lead singer Steven Tyler, alleging sexual assault, coercion of an abortion and involuntary infamy in the 1970s when she was a minor and he was in his mid-20s.
Attorneys for Julia Misley, formerly known as Julia Holcomb, filed the lawsuit on Tuesday in Los Angeles County. The suit was filed under the California Child Victims Act, which allows survivors of childhood sexual abuse to file civil cases. The three-year “lookback” window ends Saturday.
In a statement, Misley said the change in the law encouraged her to take legal action.
“I want this action to expose an industry that protects celebrity offenders, to cleanse and hold accountable an industry that both exploited and allowed me to be exploited for years, along with so many other naïve and vulnerable kids and adults,” Misley said in a statement.
According to the lawsuit, Misley first met Tyler, referred to as Defendant Doe 1 in the lawsuit, in 1973 after Tyler performed a concert in Portland, Oregon. At the time, Misley was 16 and Tyler was 25.
Related article
Steven Tyler enters treatment after relapsing
The lawsuit alleges that Tyler, now 74, took Misley to his hotel room and “performed various acts of criminal sexual conduct” upon her that night.
The lawsuit alleges, Tyler purchased a plane ticket for Misley to join him in Seattle for the band’s next show. The lawsuit alleges Misley was also abused after that show.
According to the lawsuit, in 1974, Tyler convinced Misley’s mother to “sign over the guardianship of her daughter to him.” Tyler made promises to the mother that he would enroll her in school, help support her and help provide her with better medical care than her mother could provide, according to the lawsuit.
“Defendant Doe 1 did not meaningfully follow through on these promises and instead continued to travel with, assault and provide alcohol and drugs to plaintiff,” the lawsuit alleges.
The suit also alleges that Tyler impregnated Misley and coerced her to have an abortion.
“DEFENDANT DOE 1 (Tyler) pressured and coerced Plaintiff to have an abortion by threatening that he would send her back to her family and cease to support and love her,” according to the lawsuit. “Plaintiff relented and the abortion was performed,” the suit added.
“The complaint that has been prepared by my legal team recites in legal terms the trajectory of my life from early struggles to exploitation by Steven Tyler, the music industry, my escape from that world, my recovery and transformation, my restoration of spirit through faith, the building of a family and the rebuilding of my life,” Misley said in a statement.
Related article
Steven Tyler opens home for abused girls
The lawsuit further alleges that Tyler has “intentionally publicized the acts he perpetrated” on Misley through multiple books that were published describing the assaults.
In a 2011 memoir, “Does the Noise in My Head Bother You?” Tyler writes about being so in love he “almost took a teen bride” whom the book does not identify.
“I went and slept at her parents’ house for a couple of nights and her parents fell in love with me, signed papers over for me to have custody, so I wouldn’t get arrested if I took her out of state. I took her on tour with me,” he wrote.
Tyler’s accuser said the publications retraumatized her and her family.
“I am grateful for this new opportunity to take action and be heard,” Misley said in a statement.
CNN has reached out to representatives for Steven Tyler for comment.
© 2024 Cable News Network. A Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All Rights Reserved. CNN Sans ™ & © 2016 Cable News Network.
User comment:
|
Glad, Elvis, Alive
|
Glad Elvis is not alive!
|
News article:
A woman has filed a lawsuit against Aerosmith lead singer Steven Tyler, alleging sexual assault, coercion of an abortion and involuntary infamy in the 1970s when she was a minor and he was in his mid-20s.
Attorneys for Julia Misley, formerly known as Julia Holcomb, filed the lawsuit on Tuesday in Los Angeles County. The suit was filed under the California Child Victims Act, which allows survivors of childhood sexual abuse to file civil cases. The three-year “lookback” window ends Saturday.
In a statement, Misley said the change in the law encouraged her to take legal action.
“I want this action to expose an industry that protects celebrity offenders, to cleanse and hold accountable an industry that both exploited and allowed me to be exploited for years, along with so many other naïve and vulnerable kids and adults,” Misley said in a statement.
According to the lawsuit, Misley first met Tyler, referred to as Defendant Doe 1 in the lawsuit, in 1973 after Tyler performed a concert in Portland, Oregon. At the time, Misley was 16 and Tyler was 25.
Related article
Steven Tyler enters treatment after relapsing
The lawsuit alleges that Tyler, now 74, took Misley to his hotel room and “performed various acts of criminal sexual conduct” upon her that night.
The lawsuit alleges, Tyler purchased a plane ticket for Misley to join him in Seattle for the band’s next show. The lawsuit alleges Misley was also abused after that show.
According to the lawsuit, in 1974, Tyler convinced Misley’s mother to “sign over the guardianship of her daughter to him.” Tyler made promises to the mother that he would enroll her in school, help support her and help provide her with better medical care than her mother could provide, according to the lawsuit.
“Defendant Doe 1 did not meaningfully follow through on these promises and instead continued to travel with, assault and provide alcohol and drugs to plaintiff,” the lawsuit alleges.
The suit also alleges that Tyler impregnated Misley and coerced her to have an abortion.
“DEFENDANT DOE 1 (Tyler) pressured and coerced Plaintiff to have an abortion by threatening that he would send her back to her family and cease to support and love her,” according to the lawsuit. “Plaintiff relented and the abortion was performed,” the suit added.
“The complaint that has been prepared by my legal team recites in legal terms the trajectory of my life from early struggles to exploitation by Steven Tyler, the music industry, my escape from that world, my recovery and transformation, my restoration of spirit through faith, the building of a family and the rebuilding of my life,” Misley said in a statement.
Related article
Steven Tyler opens home for abused girls
The lawsuit further alleges that Tyler has “intentionally publicized the acts he perpetrated” on Misley through multiple books that were published describing the assaults.
In a 2011 memoir, “Does the Noise in My Head Bother You?” Tyler writes about being so in love he “almost took a teen bride” whom the book does not identify.
“I went and slept at her parents’ house for a couple of nights and her parents fell in love with me, signed papers over for me to have custody, so I wouldn’t get arrested if I took her out of state. I took her on tour with me,” he wrote.
Tyler’s accuser said the publications retraumatized her and her family.
“I am grateful for this new opportunity to take action and be heard,” Misley said in a statement.
CNN has reached out to representatives for Steven Tyler for comment.
© 2024 Cable News Network. A Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All Rights Reserved. CNN Sans ™ & © 2016 Cable News Network.
User comment:
|
Steven Tyler, Singing, Age
|
I heard a man say recently, about Steven Tyler,
"There's something profoundly sad about a man in his 70s who can't sing well or play an instrument still strutting about on stage in spandex."
|
News article:
Profile Sections tv Featured More From NBC Follow NBC News There are no new alerts at this time KANSAS CITY, Mo. — An 84-year-old Kansas City man accused of shooting a Black teenager who mistakenly rang the doorbell at the wrong home surrendered to police Tuesday, officials said. "Andrew Lester, charged in the shooting of Ralph Yarl, has surrendered at our Detention Center and is in custody," the Clay County Sheriff’s Office said in a statement. "He is in the booking process right now." Lester, of Kansas City, was charged Monday with first-degree assault and armed criminal action, both of which are felonies, in the shooting Thursday night of Ralph Yarl, the Clay County prosecuting attorney has said. Lester was released Tuesday evening after he posted bail, which had been set at $200,000, the sheriff's office said. Yarl, 16, had gone to gone to the wrong address to pick up his siblings around 10 p.m., and he was shot through a glass door after he rang the doorbell, according to a probable cause statement filed by police. Lester told investigators that he had gone to bed when the doorbell rang and that he went to the door armed with a .32-caliber Smith & Wesson revolver, police wrote. Lester said he saw a Black male he didn’t know pulling on the exterior storm door handle and thought his home was being broken into, the probable cause statement says. Lester said he fired twice through the glass door, it says. Then, the male ran away, he told police, and he used his home phone to dial 911. He said he saw a car in the driveway of his home that he believed belonged to the male but didn't see anyone inside it. No words were exchanged, Lester told police. Lester said firing his weapon "was the last thing he wanted to do, but he was 'scared to death'" because of his age and the male’s size, police wrote. Lester said he lives alone. A police detective wrote in the probable cause statement that he noticed a security system in the home and took the hard drive to preserve any evidence but later found the equipment had last captured video in June and was no longer functional. Yarl was interviewed at the hospital the next day and gave a different version of events, according to the probable cause statement. He told a detective that he did not pull on the door and that he was waiting at the door after having rung the bell when a man opened the door holding a firearm. Yarl “stated he was immediately shot in the head and fell to the ground,” police wrote. He told police that he was shot again, this time in the arm, and ran, according to the document. Yarl reported to police that he heard a voice say, “Don’t come around here,” police wrote. Clay County Prosecuting Attorney Zachary Thompson said there was a racial component to the case. Lester is white. Even though Thompson said there was a racial element, Lester won’t be charged with a hate crime because it would be a lesser degree of felony than what he has been charged with, Alexander K. Higginbotham, a prosecutor’s spokesman, said by email Tuesday. “Our office has charged the defendant in his case with an A felony, which is four classes higher than a hate crime enhancement could take a charge,” he said. That is also why Lester wasn’t charged with attempted murder, Higginbotham said, because “the charge would be a lower level of offense than Assault in the First Degree and carry with it a lower range of punishment.” Thompson said he “understands the racial components and context that surround a case like this,” adding, “However, legally speaking, there is not a racial element to the legal charges that were filed.” Yarl has been released from the hospital, an attorney for his family said. Police said in the probable cause statement that they tried to reach Yarl's family Sunday and Monday to conduct a formal interview but had trouble making contact. “I just want justice to be served, so whatever is the right amount of justice for this situation should be granted out to him. Nothing more, nothing less, just the right amount, that’s it,” Cleo Nagbe, Yarl's mother, told NBC News outside the Clay County Courthouse Tuesday afternoon. Lee Merritt, who is representing Yarl's family, said that he was satisfied with the charges and that the family “want to see it through to a conviction and appropriate sentencing.” But Merritt took issue on several fronts, including why Lester was released within two hours of having been taken in for initial questioning and saying prosecutors still haven’t clarified whether the shots were fired from inside or outside the house. “We’re frustrated with law enforcement and their failure to take responsibility for the denial of this family’s due process. No one has owned up to it,” Merritt said. “This 16-year-old unarmed boy didn’t actually pose a threat. But far too often in America, his skin alone is his weapon." Merritt added that Yarl has some permanent injuries from a cracked skull, loss of brain tissue and scarring but is expected to make close to a full recovery. The shooting sparked protests in Kansas City. Actor Halle Berry was among those who spoke out. "This could be your child. This should NOT happen," Berry wrote Monday on Instagram. President Joe Biden called Yarl and his mother on Monday, attorneys for Yarl's family and a White House official said. At a rally in Kansas City on Tuesday, demonstrators called for justice, as well as safe communities for Black people. Keturah Gibson said she babysat Yarl when he was younger. She said that as a Black woman who delivers for DoorDash, and who is the mother of a 7-year-old daughter, the shooting hits close to home. “That could easily have been me that night,” Gibson said. The night of the shooting, Lester was taken into custody after the shooting and later released. Police wrote in the probable cause document that the prosecutor's office advised that he be released pending further investigation. It was not immediately clear Tuesday whether Lester had retained an attorney. Deon J. Hampton reported from Kansas City, Phil Helsel from Los Angeles and Safia Samee Ali from Chicago. Erik Ortiz contributed from New York. Deon J. Hampton is a national reporter for NBC News. Phil Helsel is a reporter for NBC News. Safia Samee Ali is a reporter for NBC News Digital, based in Chicago. © 2024 NBC UNIVERSAL
User comment:
|
America, Freedom
|
America, fuck yeah. Freedom is the only way, yeah!
|
News article:
Editor’s Note: In Snap, we look at the power of a single photograph, chronicling stories about how both modern and historical images have been made.
On an early morning in 2008, before the Metropolitan Museum of Art opened for the day, the artist Yuki Kihara sat down across from two paintings by the French artist Paul Gauguin and inspected them in the hushed, empty gallery.
The Japanese and Samoan artist, who was exhibiting at the New York museum at the time, was particularly interested in “Two Tahitian Women,” from 1899, which features two feminine figures in an Eden-like setting. One holds a flower and leans into her companion, who presents a tray of fruit to the viewer, but doesn’t quite look up to meet the eye. Fourteen years after first seeing it, Kihara has “upcycled” – or reinterpreted – the painting, along with many of Gauguin’s other artworks, in a photography series titled “Paradise Camp” for the Venice Biennale.
'Frozen in time': Rescued film near Chernobyl shows life before the nuclear disaster
“It’s not like reenactment or restaging, because when I say ‘upcycling,’ it means that I’m actually improving it from the original,” Kihara said in a video call.
Kihara is the first Pacific Indigenous artist from Samoa’s Fa’afafine community – who are assigned male at birth but express a female identity – to represent New Zealand at the prestigious global art show. In “Paradise Camp,” curated by Natalie King, Kihara intertwines themes of LGBTQ+ rights, environmentalism, and decolonization. In her lush images, taken on Upolu Island in Samoa with a nearly 100-person cast and crew, she casts Fa’afafine in the starring roles, keeping the familiarity of Gauguin’s compositions but shedding his exploitative perspective.
In modern art, Gauguin’s colonial gaze of paradise has been formative. The painter, who died in 1903, spent a decade of his later life in French Polynesia exoticizing the young Indigenous women he encountered through a prolific number of canvases, and had predatory relationships with them as well – a complicated legacy that was addressed in the exhibition “Gauguin Portraits” at the National Gallery in London in 2019. The teenage girls he painted included a 13-year-old named Teha’amana a Tahura, who experts believe to be his second wife, though her identity has been debated.
How true are Gauguin’s works and how much is constructed? To Kihara, the scenes, supposedly set in Tahiti, felt all too familiar.
“The closer I looked at the background, and then the closer I looked at the models, it reminded me of people and places in Samoa,” she said.
Through her extensive research of colonial photography, Kihara has found a clear link to the archipelago – specifically through the images of Thomas Andrew, a New Zealand photographer who lived in Samoa for the latter half of his life, from 1891 until 1939. Kihara discovered compositions identical to Gauguin’s work, as well as evidence that Gauguin in 1895 visited the Auckland Art Gallery, where some of Andrew’s images were housed.
Images of LA lowriders show dazzling cars and tenacious women
“Although Gauguin has never actually set foot in Samoa, some of his major paintings were actually directly inspired by photographs of people and places (there),” she said.
Kihara also believes that Gauguin’s models may not be cisgender women, referencing the research of Māori scholar Dr. Ngahuia Te Awekotuku, who has written that the “androgynous” models he painted were likely Māhū – the Indigenous Polynesian community that, like Samoa’s Faʻafafine, are considered to be a third gender and express a female identity.
With these connections in mind, Kihara set out to improve upon Gauguin’s famous works from a Pacific perspective. In her take on the painting “Two Tahitian Women,” called “Two Fa’afafine (After Gauguin),” the two Faʻafafine models stand in front of the manicured gardens of a local resort wearing traditional textiles. Kihara chose to feature local wildflowers and a plate of rambutan as their props, creating an altogether new iconography.
According to Kihara, her portrait challenges the very concept of paradise. “The idea of paradise is actually heteronormative,” she said, referencing the Bible’s Garden of Eden, home to Adam and Eve. In famous literature and art, as well as commercial imagery of honeymooning newlyweds, “paradise has been perpetuated by many people, including Paul Gauguin,” she said. “He comes from a canon of (the) Western gaze that impose this idea.”
Calling a place paradise also glosses over the complexities of the seemingly idyllic regions where tourists travel to escape, she added, including the land’s history of colonial violence and the looming threat of climate disaster, a battle in which Samoa is on the front lines.
After the Biennale concludes, Kihara plans to exhibit the work for her own community in Samoa, New Zealand and Australia.
“I’m taking the integrity and the dignity back to where it belongs to us, in the Pacific,” she said.
Yuki Kihara’s “Paradise Camp” will be on view at the Venice Biennale’s New Zealand Pavilion from April 23 to November 27.
© 2024 Cable News Network. A Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All Rights Reserved. CNN Sans ™ & © 2016 Cable News Network.
User comment:
|
Dumb, Article
|
This is one of the dumbest articles I’ve read in a long time
|
News article:
Profile Sections tv Featured More From NBC Follow NBC News There are no new alerts at this time WILMINGTON, Del. — Fox News and Dominion Voting Systems reached a $787.5 million settlement agreement Tuesday afternoon, the parties announced, narrowly heading off a trial shortly after the jury was sworn in. “Fox has admitted to telling lies,” John Poulos, Dominion’s CEO, said at a news conference after the trial ended. Justin Nelson, lead attorney for Dominion, told NBC News he hopes the settlement will restore faith in elections. “This alone can’t do it, right? But this shows that there is accountability, that we showed that if you are caught lying, you will be held responsible,” he said. Absent from the settlement details shared with the public was an apology or any admission that the network had indeed defamed Dominion when it allowed baseless conspiracies to proliferate on air about the company's voting machines "rigging" 2020 presidential election against Donald Trump. A statement from Fox about the agreement recognized the court's previous ruling that the claims Dominion had challenged in its defamation lawsuit were indeed without merit. "We acknowledge the Court’s rulings finding certain claims about Dominion to be false," the Fox statement said. “This settlement reflects Fox’s continued commitment to the highest journalistic standards. We are hopeful that our decision to resolve this dispute with Dominion amicably, instead of the acrimony of a divisive trial, allows the country to move forward from these issues.” When pressed, a spokesperson for Dominion said “an apology is about accountability, and today Dominion held Fox accountable.” Stephen Shackelford Jr., the attorney who had been expected to give opening statements for Dominion on Tuesday, said “money is accountability." Rumors of settlement talks had been buzzing for days, particularly after the court said late Sunday it would delay the conclusion of jury selection and opening arguments to Tuesday morning. The deal ends a monthslong legal battle over whether the media company had defamed the voting machine maker when Fox broadcast election conspiracy theories in 2020. The resolution came in the eleventh hour, after the jury was in place and reporters and lawyers had waited for hours for opening statements to begin. "The parties have resolved their case," Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric Davis said Tuesday afternoon, informing the jurors of the settlement. "That means your service is done and I’m going to excuse you. Sorry about making you wait." Dominion sued Fox News in 2021, demanding $1.6 billion in damages. It said the network defamed it when it broadcast baseless claims that it was tied to the late Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, that it paid kickbacks to politicians and that its machines “rigged” the 2020 presidential election by flipping millions of votes for Trump to Joe Biden. The settlement came after a bruising week for Fox News. During pretrial conference hearings, Davis sanctioned the network for withholding evidence, and admonished it for not being straightforward with him. He said he would allow Dominion to conduct an additional deposition with Fox Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch at Fox’s expense. Davis also ruled that Fox lawyers could not use newsworthiness as a legal defense, limiting their possible trial strategies. On Tuesday, Davis also appointed a special master to investigate whether Fox had adequately complied with court-ordered discovery. That probe was ended by the settlement, too. Few defamation suits make it this far, but outside legal experts say the case — and the extraordinary claims and evidence fueling it — was unique. The settlement is a strong outcome for Dominion, those experts said, which won't have to wait years for a potential jury-awarded payout stuck in the appeals process. Not all settlement terms are disclosed, but experts say they believe Fox's payout to be among the biggest. "This number is not small," said RonNell Andersen Jones, a professor at the University of Utah College of Law who specializes in the First Amendment. “It might be the biggest of its kind in history." Juries are always a risk, especially in a politically divisive case, she added. "While going to a jury based on 'presumed damages' and malice often results in tremendous damages, it’s still a crapshoot," Anthony Michael Glassman, a longtime media lawyer who has represented both news outlets and the subjects of stories, said in an email. A hefty settlement without a trial "is the right way to go," he added. Jane C. Timm is a senior reporter for NBC News. © 2024 NBC UNIVERSAL
User comment:
|
Trial, Hope
|
I was honestly hoping to see this, go to trial
|
End of preview. Expand
in Data Studio
README.md exists but content is empty.
- Downloads last month
- 16