Evers raises Pride flag over Wisconsin State Capitol
For the seventh time, Gov. Tony Evers ordered the Progress Pride Flag to fly over the Wisconsin State Capitol for LGBTQ Pride Month.
This year, Pride Month begins on the 10th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which gave same-sex couples the right to get married in 2015. But Evers' celebration of LGBTQ pride is occuring as the administration of President Donald Trump attacks the rights of transgender people and a recent Gallup poll found that Republican acceptance of same-sex marriage has fallen to its lowest level in nine years.
'When the Pride Flag flies above the People's House, it sends a clear and unequivocal message that Wisconsin recognizes and celebrates LGBTQ Wisconsinites and Americans,' Evers said in a statement. 'Every day, but especially today and this month, we reaffirm our commitment to striving to be a place where every LGBTQ kid, person, and family can be bold in their truth and be safe, treated with dignity and respect, and welcomed without fear of persecution, judgment, or discrimination. I promised long ago that, as governor, I would always fight to protect LGBTQ Wisconsinites with every tool and every power that I have. I will never stop keeping that promise.'
In the executive order Evers signed Friday, he notes that the LGBTQ has been under attack in recent years, including in Wisconsin where Republicans have tried more than once to pass legislation attacking transgender children.
'Despite historic victories, in the last several years, there has been a significant increase in anti-LGBTQ legislation introduced in state Legislatures across the country, including in Wisconsin, that have targeted LGBTQ kids and people and increased dangerous anti-LGBTQ rhetoric, as well as efforts on a state and national level to erase LGBTQ history and stories.'
The Progress Pride Flag flying above the Capitol includes the recognizable LGBTQ rainbow colors and a chevron of additional stripes that represent LGBTQ people of color, the transgender community and people with HIV/AIDS.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
4 hours ago
- USA Today
LA banned the N and C words from council meetings. Does the First Amendment allow that?
The council called it a 'narrowly focused rule' to curb ongoing disruptions during its meetings. But some First Amendment groups are concerned it will put the city on a slippery slope. As deadly wildfires raged across Southern California in January, a Los Angeles city official lamented to the city council and others how they were forced to listen to hateful, vulgar language from some members of the public. He thanked the audience for their patience in listening to one man's tirade in which he yelled "burn, Palisades, burn!" and used the N-word to describe council members. It was far from an isolated incident. A small group of people have repeatedly showed up to comment at the council meetings, spewing the N-word and C-word while ranting about everything from the city's homeless crisis to mask-wearing and the 2028 Olympics. Council members finally had enough. In late July, they passed a motion banning the public from using those two words during council meetings, despite warnings from First Amendment groups that the move could put the city on a slippery slope toward unconstitutional censorship. Already, the ban is getting put to the test. Just two days after the council passed the new rule, a man used the N-word three times in less than 10 seconds during his three minutes of speaking time. Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson asked for the clerk to pause his time. 'Speaker, you have used the N-word, which is a violation of Council Rule 7,' Harris-Dawson said. 'This is your only warning that this word and any of its variations described in Council Rule 7 may not be used again in this council meeting, any future council meeting or future council committee meetings.' If the man continued to use the term, Harris-Dawson said, he would risk forfeiting the rest of his speaking time and being removed from the meeting. The council's motion calls the terms the 'most frequently used offensive and injurious epithets' at city council meetings. It said such words are 'inherently harmful,' citing the U.S. Supreme Court's 1942 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. The ruling said some terms 'by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.' Such 'fighting words,' the court found, are not protected by the First Amendment. That's the argument city officials are making to justify the ban. These aren't ordinary words, city officials say. Under the new rule, a speaker who uses the term will first receive a verbal warning. If they use it again, the presiding officer will again tell them they cannot use such language and indicate that the need to reissue the warning has disrupted the meeting, therefore allowing the council to cut off the speaker. The speaker may also be removed from the proceedings and banned from future meetings, according to the motion. It specifies that violations of the rule would not invoke criminal or financial penalties. 'The cost is too high,' First Amendment group says Free speech groups have raised concerns about the rule and its First Amendment implications. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), urged the council not to adopt the measure, saying in an April 29 letter the rule would 'implement an unconstitutional solution when better alternatives that do not infringe on the speech rights of your constituents are available.' Likewise, the First Amendment Coalition, a nonprofit organization that focuses on First Amendment issues in California, wrote a similarly worded letter to the council raising concerns. The group said it "understands and sympathizes" with the city over the words and their impact on the community. Still, the group said the rule violates the First Amendment and opens the city up to lawsuits. "As with other ill-fated attempts to silence offensive speech, that result would amplify the objectionable message and allow those who utter it to claim victory as defenders of free speech," the group wrote. "Also, the first victim of censorship is rarely the last, and attempts at restricting offensive speech often lead to censorship of those they are intended to protect." But the council's motion, which was presented in March and passed on July 30, argued that action was necessary because the terms had been used and disrupted the meetings 'on many occasions.' The sergeants-at-arms 'prevented fights that were on the cusp of breaking out' on at least two occasions, the motion said. It acknowledged that the council 'faces competing duties' in being obligated to hear from the public and give them opportunities to exercise their First Amendment rights while still protecting council members and others in attendance at the meetings. 'It is understandable, given the rough and tumble of city council hearings why governments would want rules of decorum,' said Ben Wizner, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Speech, Privacy and Technology Project. 'The problem is, the cost is too high, and it gives them too much authority to suppress and censor opposing views.' But a spokesperson for Harris-Dawson said the measure was not meant to suppress free speech. 'This is not a ban on offensive speech in general, nor does it limit the public's right to criticize, protest, or speak passionately,' the spokesperson said. 'Instead, it draws a line at language that, by consistent and documented use, has disrupted the Council's ability to conduct public business and discouraged public participation.' Los Angeles City Council meetings compared to 'Jerry Springer' Harris-Dawson's spokesperson described the ban as a 'narrowly focused rule' meant to prevent disruptions and maintain a civil environment. 'These slurs are not being restricted because of the viewpoints they may express, but because they have repeatedly incited disruption, escalated tensions and silenced the participation of others,' the spokesperson said. Right before council meeting broadcasts begin, a disclaimer warns that the 'following content may contain offensive language not suitable for some audiences' and that 'viewer discretion is advised.' 'It's almost like you're about to watch an episode of 'Jerry Springer,'' said Stephanie Jablonsky, FIRE's senior program counsel for public advocacy. During the council's July 30 meeting, a member of the public repeatedly used both terms and said the council could make him a 'millionaire' after he sues on free speech grounds. The council voted in 2014 to settle a free speech lawsuit brought by a man who was kicked out of a city commission meeting for wearing a Ku Klux Klan hood and shirt emblazoned with the N-word. Another man used the N-word several times in condemning the rule, along with a call to 'send the Jews back to Israel' and a reference to President Donald Trump's administration being 'the only America of constitutional betterment.' Kathy Schreiner, the president of the Van Nuys Neighborhood Council, which urged the city council to pass the measure, said her group's meetings have also been disrupted by such language. Schreiner said she has "frequently been called the C-word" since starting her position in December 2022. The council's former president, Michael Browning, was also 'frequently' called the N-word in meetings throughout his two-year tenure, she wrote. 'The (Van Nuys Neighborhood Council) has an unusually small attendance from the public at our meetings, and we know that one major reason is how difficult it is to sit through meetings where so many vulgar and nasty public comments are made,' Schreiner said. She requested the city council 'explore whether there is some way you could help prohibit the use of these epithets at all Neighborhood Council Board and Committee meetings.' The Palms Neighborhood Council also asked for the city council to pass the ban and 'apply the same changes to Neighborhood Council meetings.' Both city and neighborhood council meetings attract people who are 'able to disrupt discussions for sport' using 'vile language and pointless hate speech,' the statement read. 'Transparency in government is crucial, and stakeholders must be allowed to criticize the work of government without fear of reprisal,' the statement went on to say. 'But this process is actually degraded and undermined when individuals with no productive aims destroy the public dialogue and engagement with hate speech targeted only at blowing up the process.' City says rule about preserving access, 'not censoring ideas' But the First Amendment 'exists for this exact reason,' Jablonsky said. The remedy, in her view, is to 'punish the disruption' and not the speaker. Though certain terms may be offensive and harmful to many people, Jablonsky said it's vital to resist any efforts to ban words. 'If we don't, we are setting a dangerous precedent for government to regulate what we say,' she said. 'Any inch they are given will absolutely get used.' Wizner agreed, saying the 'only speech that needs constitutional protection is speech that deeply offends." The ACLU's 2024 article, 'Defending Speech We Hate,' noted that the organization has defended the free speech rights of numerous groups it strongly disagrees with – among them neo-Nazis, white supremacists and the National Rifle Association. 'Our view is if the First Amendment doesn't protect the NRA in New York, it doesn't protect the ACLU in Texas,' Wizner said. But the council has maintained that its actions are both legal and necessary to address terms that have 'repeatedly incited disruption, escalated tensions and silenced the participation of others' at meetings. 'Just like courtrooms and school board meetings, Council Chambers are limited public forums where reasonable time, place, and manner rules apply,' Harris-Dawson's spokesperson said. 'This motion is about preserving access and safety for everyone, not censoring ideas, but safeguarding the ability of all residents to speak and be heard without intimidation or verbal abuse.' BrieAnna Frank is a First Amendment Reporting Fellow at USA TODAY. Reach her at bjfrank@ USA TODAY's coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. Funders do not provide editorial input.
Axios
5 hours ago
- Axios
Zelensky scrambles to avert disaster as Trump meets Putin
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and his team are doing everything in their power to influence President Trump's thinking before he sits down with Vladimir Putin. His last big chance could come on Wednesday. Why it matters: Zelensky is staring down a perfect storm: a sudden Russian battlefield breakthrough, mounting discontent at home, and a high-stakes summit in Alaska on Friday that could back him into a diplomatic corner. The big picture: Trump is expected to hold a virtual meeting Wednesday with Zelensky and a group of European leaders, two sources with knowledge of the plans tell Axios. Zelensky has been downplaying Russia's recent gains and working the phones to leaders in Europe and beyond to hedge against an unfavorable outcome in Alaska. Behind the scenes: After a series of largely fruitless phone calls over the last six months, Trump has been itching to meet Putin face to face to gauge his willingness to make peace, U.S. officials say. "The President feels like, look, I've got to look at this guy across the table. ... I want to look this guy in the eye. I think we're going to know very early in that meeting whether this thing has any chance of success or not," Secretary of State Marco Rubio told radio host Sid Rosenberg on Tuesday. Zelensky and other European leaders are concerned that when Trump looks Putin in the eye, he will actually agree with his hardline demands. "As of now, nobody knows what Trump wants to get from Putin on Friday. We don't know how much influence we can have on Trump, but we have to keep trying," a Ukrainian official told Axios. Zoom in: Recent days have been whiplash-inducing for Ukrainian officials. Trump was set to announce harsh sanctions on Russia last Friday, but instead announced he'd be welcoming Putin onto U.S. soil. Meanwhile, Russian forces have made one of their most rapid gains in more than a year in the past 48 hours. Zelensky claimed Tuesday that the advance was narrow and tactical, intended to shape perceptions ahead of the Trump-Putin summit. "The military is going to correct it," he said. Polls show that Ukraine's population, which once overwhelmingly wanted to fight on until victory, now wants peace. Gallup found 69% want a deal "as soon as possible," while KIIS in Kyiv found growing — though not majority — openness to terms previously floated by the Trump administration. While Trump hasn't cut off weapons for Ukraine, he's now offering them for sale to NATO countries rather than sending them directly, muddying the outlook for future shipments. The other side: U.S. officials argue that if Trump's rhetoric sounds pro-Russian at times, it's because he believes that kind of public messaging will help him get a deal. One told Axios that Trump is still "pissed off" at Putin. "The general view for months is that we can bring down the Russian economy tomorrow. There are more ways to ruin Ukraine. But if he had to choose a side, he would start to bring down the Russian economy. He's really had enough." The U.S. official said that even if the diplomatic efforts fail, Trump will continue selling weapons to NATO countries for Ukraine. " Maybe Trump can't get this done but he's going to do his level-best," the official said.
Newsweek
5 hours ago
- Newsweek
Ukrainians Have Changed Their Minds on Ending War
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Support among Ukrainians for continuing the fight against Russia has slumped, according to polling that shows most want to end the war through negotiations. The Gallup survey found that most Ukrainians backed ending the war with Russia through negotiations, as support for Kyiv fighting on until victory has dropped sharply since the early days of the conflict. This is a reversal from 2022, the year the war started, when most favored Ukraine fighting until victory, and only a fifth wanted a negotiated end as soon as possible. Gallup also found that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky had an approval rating of 67 percent, up seven percentage points from 2024. Benedict Vigers, a senior global news writer at Gallup, told Newsweek that since 2023, Gallup has observed "meaningful shifts in how Ukrainians feel about the war with Russia." Newsweek reached out to the Ukrainian presidential office for comment. Why It Matters Polling, which shows dwindling support among Ukrainians for fighting on and greater support for talks, adds to the stakes in Friday's summit in Alaska between Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Donald Trump, from which Zelensky will be absent. A Ukrainian woman grieves the loss of her 22-year-old son, a serviceman in the Ukrainian Armed Forces, on August 10, 2025, in Kramatorsk. A Ukrainian woman grieves the loss of her 22-year-old son, a serviceman in the Ukrainian Armed Forces, on August 10, 2025, in To Know Gallup has polled Ukrainians four times since the start of the full-scale invasion launched in February 2022. Its latest survey of 1,000 people was conducted between July 1 and July 14, 2025, with a margin of error of between 3.6 and 4.3 percentage points. Three and a half years into the war, Gallup found that 69 percent of Ukrainians backed a negotiated end to the war as soon as possible. Vigers told Newsweek the shift in public opinion has been significant, and that this was a 17-percentage-point increase since 2024, when 52 percent favored negotiated peace. In 2022, only 22 percent of Ukrainians favored a negotiated end to the war, and 73 percent favored Ukraine fighting until victory. This dwindling of support for continued fighting was seen across all age groups, regions and demographics, although most doubt that the fighting will end soon. One quarter believed active fighting would come to an end within the next year, although only 5 percent saw it as "very likely." Over two-thirds (68 percent) said it was unlikely that active fighting would come to an end in the next year. Gallup polling also put Zelensky's approval rating at 67 percent, which, while lower than the 84 percent he had at the start of the war, was higher than the 60 percent of last year and much higher than what his predecessor, Petro Poroshenko, received. Friday's summit in Alaska will take place as fighting remains tense along the frontline and Moscow continues to launch drones and missiles targeting Ukrainian infrastructure. A sticking point in negotiations is whether a deal involves swapping land for a ceasefire, which Zelensky has said is counter to Ukraine's constitution and would hand Putin the regions that Russian forces only partially control. Ukrainian geopolitical analyst Viktor Kovalenko told Newsweek that leaving some eastern territories under Russian control without recognition doesn't clash with Ukraine's Constitution nor Zelensky's political stance, allowing him to avoid domestic protests. Kovalenko said Trump helped solve the dispute between Azerbaijan and Armenia last week by excluding the Azerbaijani occupation of the Nagorno-Karabakh province from the deal, and there could be a similar deal over Ukraine. U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Danang, Vietnam, on November 11, 2017. U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Danang, Vietnam, on November 11, 2017."No one can be sure that Washington would formally recognize Crimea, Donbas, and Luhansk as a part of Russia," Kovalenko said. But Yuriy Boyechko, CEO of Hope for Ukraine, a charity that helps frontline communities in the war-torn country, told Newsweek that Trump agreeing to meet with Putin without any preconditions plays directly into Russia's hands. Putin will end his diplomatic isolation by meeting with the president of the world's largest democracy, while there has been no mention of secondary sanctions, which Trump had threatened would be imposed from last Friday, Boyechko said. He predicted that this Friday's meeting between Trump and Putin would not bring a ceasefire to Ukraine, even temporarily. Zelensky said Ukrainian intelligence showed Russia is relocating troops in different parts of the front, which shows Putin is not ready for peace and that the White House has no real plan or strategy for this important meeting, Boyechko said. What People Are Saying Benedict Vigers, senior global news writer at Gallup, told Newsweek:"Since 2023, Gallup has observed meaningful shifts in how Ukrainians feel about the war with saw 'a nearly complete reversal in public opinion.'" Viktor Kovalenko, producer of Ukraine Decoded Substack: "I expect that Putin might also abandon some key, but not all, of his maximalist demands to avoid the collapse of Moscow's BRICS economic alliance, which is existentially threatened by Washington's sanctions on India and Brazil." Yuriy Boyechko, CEO of Hope for Ukraine: "By not implementing sanctions on August 8, President Trump showed serious weakness, and Putin will certainly exploit that weakness during Friday's meeting." What Happens Next In statements issued so far this week, Ukraine's European allies have publicly said that changing borders by force was not acceptable and emphasized that Kyiv must be part of any peace deal, with high-stakes diplomacy likely to continue before Friday's summit.
