Miami Beach Mayor Caves, Drops Plan To Shutter Indie Theater For Showing Oscar Winner ‘No Other Land'
Mayor Steven Meiner withdrew his plan during a lively meeting of the Miami Beach City Commission today. He had issued a draft resolution last week calling for his city to terminate a lease agreement with O Cinema, located at Old City Hall, a property owned by the city.
More from Deadline
Doc Talk Podcast On Miami Beach Move To Punish Theater Showing 'No Other Land', Plus Field Report From Thessaloniki Doc Festival
Oscar Winners & Hundreds Of Others Decry Threat To Close Miami Beach Theater For Showing 'No Other Land': 'Attack On Freedom Of Expression & First Amendment'
Beethoven's 'Fidelio' Live From The Met Sings On A Quiet Weekend, With 'October 8', 'No Other Land' - Specialty Box Office
The resolution would have eliminated about $40,000 in grants provided by Miami Beach to the nonprofit that runs the arthouse. O Cinema began screening No Other Land on March 7, five days after it won Best Documentary Feature at the Academy Awards.
The move comes two days after more than 600 people including several Oscar winners signed an open letter to the city decrying the theater's potential shutdown as 'an attack on freedom of expression, the right of artists to tell their stories, and a violation of the First Amendment.'
The film, directed by a collective of four Israeli and Palestinian filmmakers, provides a ground-level view of life for Palestinian residents of the rural Masafer Yatta area of the occupied West Bank who live under an expulsion order by the Israel Defense Forces, which wants the land for a military training zone. The documentary shows IDF forces knocking down Palestinian homes and schools pursuant to the expulsion order, as well as violent attacks by Israeli settlers on Palestinians.
MORE TO COME…
Best of Deadline
2025 TV Series Renewals: Photo Gallery
2025-26 Awards Season Calendar: Dates For Tonys, Emmys, Oscars & More
2025 TV Cancellations: Photo Gallery
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Magazine
27 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
More Than 6,000 Student Visas Revoked By State Department
More than 6,000 student visas have been revoked by the State Department since January as the Trump Administration cracks down on international students and other immigrants to the U.S, the agency says. Around two-thirds of the student visas have been cancelled due to overstays and other alleged law violations, including assault, DUI, and burglary, according to a State Department spokesperson. Roughly 200-300, they said, were revoked for 'support for terrorism' under the Immigration and Nationality Act, which bars foreign-born people from admission to the country for engaging in—or being deemed likely to engage in—'terrorist activities.' The revocations were first reported by Fox News. The Trump Administration has targeted international students and student visa programs as part of its broader efforts to reshape both U.S. higher education and immigration. Students with legal status but without citizenship who participated in pro-Palestinian protests, including those involved in setting up encampments on college campuses, or otherwise showed support for Palestine, have been a particular focus of the Administration. Several, including former Columbia University graduate student Mahmoud Khalil and Tufts University PhD student Rümeysa Öztürk, were arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), with an official pointing to the President's Executive Orders on antisemitism following Khalil's arrest. Others have also been investigated. Foreign-born students have also been the subject of attacks from the federal government's battle with Harvard University, which has refused to cede to Administration demands including altering its diversity, equity, and inclusion practices and changing its hiring practices to include more conservative voices. Amid an escalating pressure campaign, the Administration has sought to revoke the university's ability to enroll international students, halt its federal research grants and funding, and more. A deal between university officials and the Administration is now reportedly being negotiated. Other Administration measures have targeted foreign-born students more broadly. In April, the immigration records of thousands of international students were erased from an information system due in many cases to minor or dismissed legal infractions—temporarily leaving them without legal status in the country—before the government reversed the action later in the month following mass public pressure from students and the court system. Weeks later, the State Department announced in June that new student visa applicants had to make their social media accounts 'public' to open them to review for potential 'hostile attitudes towards our citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles.' 'A U.S. visa is a privilege, not a right,' the June announcement said. 'Every visa adjudication is a national security decision. The United States must be vigilant during the visa issuance process to ensure that those applying for admission into the United States do not intend to harm Americans and our national interests.'
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
R.I. prosecutor told police to turn off a body-worn camera during her arrest. Do officers have to comply?
'I want you to turn your body cam off,' Devon Flanagan tells an officer during the Aug. 14 confrontation, Content Warning: Profanity. Body camera footage shows R.I. Special Assistant Attorney General Devon Flanagan and Veronica Hannan being arrested in Newport. 'Protocol is that you turn it off if a citizen requests to turn it off,' Flanagan said. Is that true? Not really, experts say. 'The state's body-worn camera policy is very clear that the request to turn off the cameras is something that an officer should consider, if asked by a victim or a witness to a crime – not to somebody who was suspected of the crime,' said Get Rhode Map A weekday briefing from veteran Rhode Island reporters, focused on the things that matter most in the Ocean State. Enter Email Sign Up 'And it remains within the discretion of the police officer in any event,' Brown added. 'It's not an obligation.' Advertisement Rhode Island Police Chiefs Association President Thomas Oates III said officers in the Newport incident were 'well within policy.' 'I don't know that young lady, what knowledge she has of body-worn camera policy or what she thought it was, but whatever she was saying, she was inaccurate,' said Oates, who is also the chief of police in Woonsocket. Under the Advertisement Police could also decide to deactivate a camera in 'areas where there may be a reasonable expectation of privacy and [in] other sensitive locations,' the policy states. Those areas could include private residences, locker rooms, law offices, schools, daycare facilities, certain places in hospitals or clinics, and where 'First Amendment rights are being exercised,' including places of worship, newsrooms, and where peaceful protests are taking place, the policy states. Officers recording in those areas 'shall be mindful not to record beyond what is necessary to capture contact with members of the public, effect an arrest, or search for an individual,' according to the policy. Whether police mute or stop the recording, or only record audio in those areas should based on whether an officer 'observes activities or circumstances of a sensitive or private nature,' or if there are people present who are not involved with the police matter; who are minors; and who are witnesses and want anonymity, the policy states. Brown noted the alleged incident in Newport 'was out in public.' 'These are precisely the circumstances where the body cameras should be activated,' he said. Officers 'acted appropriately in not turning the camera off,' Brown said. Timothy Rondeau, a spokesperson for the Attorney General's Office, said on Monday that Flanagan's request is not part of the statewide body-worn camera policy, and confirmed the policy applies only to victims and witnesses of crimes. According to Oates, departments adopted provisions of the statewide policy to receive funding when Advertisement The Newport police Lieutenant Robert Salter, a department spokesperson, wrote in an email the department would not comment further on Tuesday regarding last week's incident. According to Oates, the decision for police to record depends on the circumstances. 'Obviously a case where there's an alleged disturbance involved, or someone potentially acting in a disorderly manner and is argumentative and doesn't want to comply with the commands of the police officers to clear them from an area, we're never going to turn the body camera off,' Oates said. Oates has not heard of many people requesting not to be recorded, he said. 'This is why it's important that body-worn cameras are existent,' Oates said. 'In a lot of cases, what it does is it causes people who are behaving badly to ... calm down and not behave badly when they know that they're being recorded and their actions are being documented.' It doesn't always work that way though, Oates said. Related : In Newport on Aug. 14, officers arrived around 9:51 p.m. at 24 Bannister's Wharf – the Clark Cooke House restaurant – after receiving a report of an intoxicated woman – later identified as Veronica Hannan – refusing to leave, police wrote in a report. During the encounter caught on video, Flanagan, who was with Hannan, repeatedly tells officers to turn off the camera. She also tells them several times, 'I'm an A.G.,' and as she is placed in a cruiser, she says, 'You're going to regret this.' Advertisement Police identified Flanagan as Devon Hogan, 34, of Warwick. The Attorney General's Office confirmed that Hogan and Flanagan are the same person. She was charged with willful trespass – a misdemeanor – and was given a summons to appear in court. Salter would not provide the court date on Tuesday. Flanagan has not returned requests for comment, and it was unclear on Tuesday whether she had obtained an attorney. Speaking on He said he gives police credit 'for treating her like everybody else,' and acknowledged Flanagan was incorrect about camera policy. 'She's embarrassed herself – humiliated herself – treated the Newport Police Department horribly,' Neronha said, adding that it was 'inexcusable behavior.' Still, it has been difficult to find and retain 'capable lawyers,' Neronha noted. If Flanagan keeps her job, she will not 'go on as if nothing happened,' Neronha said. 'There'll be a strong sanction here,' he said. Officers can also be seen on the video struggling to apprehend Hannan, 34, of Westport, Conn. She was arrested and charged with willful trespass, disorderly conduct, and resisting arrest – all misdemeanors, police said. Court records show Hannan was arraigned on Friday in Newport County District Court, where a plea of not guilty was entered. She was released on $1,000 personal recognizance and a pre-trial conference is scheduled for Aug. 27. 'Veronica is obviously overwhelmed by this experience. It happened so quickly and with a lot of energy,' John R. Grasso, an attorney representing Hannan, wrote in an email requesting comment on Tuesday. 'Once we have the facts and she processes it, maybe we can speak more then.' Advertisement A now-removed LinkedIn profile listed Hannan as a senior manager for data and AI product management at PepsiCo. PepsiCo did not immediately return a request for comment on Tuesday. Asked about any concerns the ACLU has about government officials making comments to police such as those Flanagan allegedly made, Brown said officials can say 'whatever they want' during run-ins with the law. 'The question is how police officers react and whether they end up giving special treatment to somebody because they're a government official,' Brown said. 'In this case, they didn't.' Christopher Gavin can be reached at
NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
Federal judge blocks parts of Mississippi ban on DEI in public schools
A federal judge has blocked portions of Mississippi's ban on diversity, equity and inclusion practices in public schools from being enforced while a lawsuit against it is underway. The provisions blocked by U.S. District Judge Henry Wingate on Monday seek to prohibit public schools from discussing a list of "divisive concepts" related to race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation and national origin. They would also prevent public schools from maintaining programs, courses or offices that promote DEI or endorse "divisive concepts," and ban diversity training requirements. The preliminary injunction does not block other portions of the law, including those that prevent schools from giving preferential treatment based on race, sex, color or national origin and that penalize students or staff for their refusal to embrace DEI concepts. The law, which took effect in April, aims to prevent public schools from "engaging in discriminatory practices" by banning DEI offices, trainings and programs. Any school in violation of the act could lose state funding. A group of teachers, parents and students is suing the state, arguing that the law violates their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Wingate wrote in his ruling that he finds the law to be at odds with the First Amendment and the public interest of the state. "It is unconstitutionally vague, fails to treat speech in a viewpoint-neutral manner, and carries with it serious risks of terrible consequences with respect to the chilling of expression and academic freedom," he wrote. Wingate also granted the plaintiff's request to add class action claims to the lawsuit, meaning the injunction will apply to teachers, professors and students across the state. The plaintiff's lawyers sought the addition after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June limited the ability of federal judges to grant sweeping injunctions. Jarvis Dortch, the executive director of the ACLU of Mississippi, which is helping litigate the case, said he was thankful for Wingate's stance. "The Court sees the law for what it plainly is — an attempt to stop the proper exchange of ideas within the classroom," Dortch said in a statement. Wingate's ruling follows a temporary restraining order he granted to the plaintiffs in July. At an Aug. 5 hearing, lawyers representing the plaintiffs argued the law is too confusing, leaving parents, teachers and students wondering what they can and cannot say and whether they could face consequences as a result of their speech. Cliff Johnson, a professor at the University of Mississippi Law School and Mississippi director of the MacArthur Justice Center, testified that he and his students often discuss what could be considered "divisive topics." Johnson said he did not believe the law would allow him to teach about the First, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments; the court case that paved the way for the internment of Japanese citizens during WWII; portions of the Civil Rights Act; or the murders of Emmett Till and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. "I think I'm in a very difficult position. I can teach my class as usual and run the serious risk of being disciplined, or I could abandon something that's very important to me," Johnson testified. "I feel a bit paralyzed." The Mississippi Attorney General's Office argued that public employees do not have First Amendment rights. "They are speaking for the government and the government has every right to tell them what they need to say on its behalf," said Lisa Reppeto, an attorney at the state attorney general's office. She added that the First Amendment does not give students the right to dictate what their school does or does not say. Reppeto also said the consequences of the law are aimed at the schools — not students or teachers — and that the plaintiffs' "argument is not consistent with what is in the statute."
