Latest news with #FirstAmendment
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
White House Gives 'The View' Chilling Warning After Joy Behar Claims Trump is 'Jealous' Of Obama
Who knew the attempted dismantling of the First Amendment would be kind of dumb? The White House emailed an intimidating statement to Entertainment Weekly on Wednesday after the outlet reached out for comment about remarks Joy Behar made on 'The View' about President Donald Trump. During Wednesday's episode, the women of 'The View' discussed Trump's accusation that former President Barack Obama participated in a 'coup' against him in 2016 — an allegation Obama later called 'outrageous.' In response to Trump's claims, Behar immediately brought up Jan. 6, 2021, in which a horde of Trump supporters participated in an insurrection on the Capitol to overthrow the results of the 2020 presidential election. 'The thing about [Trump] is he's so jealous of Obama,' Behar said. 'Because Obama is everything that he is not — trim, smart, handsome, happily married, and can sing Al Green's song 'Let's Stay Together' better than Al Green. And Trump cannot stand it. It's driving him crazy.' In response to EW's request for a comment on Behar's remarks, the White House called the daytime talk show host 'an irrelevant loser suffering from a severe case of Trump Derangement Syndrome.' It also alleged that the show has 'hit the lowest ratings' in recent years. The statement went on to say Behar 'should self-reflect on her own jealousy of President Trump's historic popularity before her show is the next to be pulled off air.' The Trump administration's ominous warning against 'The View' follows CBS's announcement last week that the 'Late Show with Stephen Colbert' would be ending in May 2026. The network said it would not be finding a new host for the three-decade-long franchise, which was initially helmed by David Letterman. CBS claimed the decision was 'purely a financial' one, pointing to the general decline of late-night audiences. The news that the 'Late Show' was being canceled altogether occurred shortly after Colbert criticized CBS's parent company, Paramount, for agreeing to pay $16 million to settle a ridiculous lawsuit with Trump over a pretty standard edit made by '60 Minutes.' That settlement came amid a pending multibillion-dollar merger between Paramount and Skydance Media, one that requires approval from the Federal Communications Commission. Brendan Carr, the chairman of the FCC, was a Trump selection. On Tuesday, Carr complained on X about the 'left's ritualist wailing and gnashing of teeth' over Colbert's cancellation. 'They're acting like they're losing a loyal DNC spokesperson that was entitled to an exemption from the laws of economics,' Carr wrote.
Boston Globe
16 minutes ago
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Judge says R.I. officials have immunity in First Amendment lawsuit
Travis, who was presiding over the meeting as council president pro-tempore, cut him off and said, 'You will be talking about city government or you'll be leaving.' Cote said he did plan to talk about the government, but Travis had an officer escort him out of the meeting. 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 The ACLU filed the lawsuit, accusing Warwick City Council members of violating Cote's First Amendment rights to free speech and to petition the government for redress of grievances. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case. Advertisement In an order Tuesday, Senior US District Court Judge William E. Smith agreed to dismiss the City Council members in their personal capacities but not their professional capacities, reducing the lawsuit to a case against the city. 'Travis's act indeed may have violated Cote's constitutional rights, may have evinced poor judgment, and may even have been done in service of an inappropriate motive or intent,' Smith wrote. Advertisement 'But legislative immunity 'is not forfeited simply because the activities, if unprotected, might violate a plaintiff's constitutional rights,' ' he wrote, citing a prior ruling. Ultimately, if Travis 'overstepped the boundary of sound judgment,' she should be held accountable not under federal law 'but at the ballot box,' Smith wrote, citing another ruling. In a footnote, the judge said, 'It appears that Travis was, in fact, called to account for her alleged actions.' He noted Travis decided to not seek reelection and in 2024 agreed to Smith said the US Supreme Court has held that local legislators are entitled to 'absolute immunity' for their legislative activities, so the key question in this case is whether Travis's decision to boot from the meeting Cote represented 'legitimate legislative activity.' 'Facing this difficult question, the court believes that both precedent and prudence favor the conclusion that Travis's action ... was within the sphere of legitimate legislative activity,' Smith wrote. He cited a City Council rule that allows council president to 'preserve decorum and order.' On Wednesday, Cote criticized the judge's ruling and said it could have implications for the rest of Rhode Island. 'It's really bad news. This can be interpreted so broadly,' Cote said. 'If you get up in front of your town council or school committee meeting, and they don't like the content of what you are speaking about, they can remove you without ramifications. Your First Amendment rights are gone. I guess we are in Moscow.' Advertisement But Steven Brown, executive director of the ACLU of Rhode Island, said the lawsuit will proceed against the city even though City Council members can't be held liable in an individual capacity. 'The suit remains quite alive and we will be pursuing the matter,' he said. 'They are not off the hook by any means.' Brown emphasized the significance of the litigation. 'The ability of members of the public to speak to their representatives on topics of public interest is crucial to a democratic form of government,' he said. 'Mr. Cote wanted to talk about something that clearly involved city business and something extremely important, so barring him from being able to talk about it undermined the whole point of the public comment period.' An attorney representing Warwick and City Council members, Marc DeSisto, declined to comment. Edward Fitzpatrick can be reached at
Axios
an hour ago
- Politics
- Axios
Macrons sue Candace Owens for defamation
French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife filed a defamation lawsuit against ring-wing podcaster Candace Owens alleging she circulated "outlandish, defamatory, and far-fetched fictions" about the couple for profit. The big picture: The 219-page complaint, which was filed in Delaware, alleges Owens' "lies have caused tremendous damage to the Macrons," subjecting the French leader and his wife to "a campaign of global humiliation." Driving the news: Owens used the false claim that the French first lady was born a man to "promote her independent platform, gain notoriety, and make money," the 22-count suit alleges. She published a series and social media posts promoting conspiracy theories about the couple "with reckless disregard for the truth," the complaint alleges, and continued to double down despite direct outreach and retraction demands from the Macrons. "These claims are demonstrably false, and Owens knew they were false when she published them," the complaint reads. "Yet, she published them anyway. And the reason is clear: it is not the pursuit of truth, but the pursuit of fame." Catch up quick: Starting in March 2024, the suit alleges, Owens began promoting the false claim that the first lady was born a man before her departure from the Daily Wire and continued "recycling" that falsehood and spreading other conspiracies on her own podcast and social media. The lawsuit also alleges she created and sold merchandise to promote her claims. What they're saying: A spokesperson for Owens said in a statement to Axios she is "not shutting up" and will "address everything on her show today." "This is a foreign government attacking the First Amendment rights of an American independent journalist," the spokesperson said. The French Embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to Axios' request for comment. Zoom in: The suit points to Owens' history of platforming conspiracy theories and antisemitic tropes. "Her content is not intended to inform but to inflame and attract attention through sensationalism and conspiracy theories," it alleges. According to the complaint, the Macrons seek an unspecified amount of damages, which will be "determined at trial." What they're saying: After Owens continued platforming such claims in response to repeated retraction requests, the Macrons said in a statement that taking the matter to court was the only remaining solution. "We gave her every opportunity to back away from these claims, but she refused," their statement read. "It is our earnest hope that this lawsuit will set the record straight and end this campaign of defamation once and for all."
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Rubio says Harvard might lose visa program eligibility
July 23 (UPI) -- The State Department is investigating whether Harvard University undermines U.S. policy via educational and cultural exchanges that enable international students, professors and others to obtain visas. The investigation's purpose is to determine whether or not Harvard officials are undermining national security and foreign policy through its participation in the Exchange Visitor Program, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced on Wednesday. "All sponsors participating in this program are required to fully comply with exchange visitor regulations, transparency in reporting and a demonstrated commitment to fostering the principles of cultural exchange and mutual understanding upon which the program was founded," Rubio said in a prepared statement. Harvard "must comply with all regulations ... in a manner that does not undermine the foreign policy objectives or compromise the national security interests of the United States," Rubio continued. "The American people have the right to expect their universities to uphold national security, comply with the law and provide safe environments for all students." He said the investigation will ensure the university's participation in State Department programs does not "run contrary to our nation's interests." The Trump administration in May revoked Harvard's eligibility to participate in the Exchange Visitor Program. U.S. District Court of Massachusetts Judge Allison Burroughs overturned the revocation of Harvard's program eligibility. Rubio notified Harvard University President Dr. Alan Garber of the investigation on Wednesday but did not accuse university officials of any wrongdoing in the matter. He gave Harvard a week to provide relevant university records and said the department will interview university staff and possibly students who are participating in the exchange program. The Department of Homeland Security in July likewise subpoenaed Harvard to obtain information on the university's program participation. The State Department's investigation will not affect Harvard's sponsorship and enrollment of students, professors and researchers, according to a statement shared with United Press International. "This investigation is yet another retaliatory step taken by the administration in violation of Harvard's First Amendment rights," a Harvard spokesperson said. "Harvard continues to enroll and sponsor international scholars, researchers and students and will protect its international community and support them as they apply for U.S. visas and travel to campus this fall." Solve the daily Crossword
The Hill
2 hours ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Trade group asks Supreme Court to limit Mississippi's social media law
An internet trade group asked the Supreme Court Wednesday to block Mississippi from enforcing its age-verification law against nine major social media platforms. NetChoice asked the justices for an emergency intervention after the 5 th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last week without explanation lifted a block that had protected platforms like Facebook and Instagram from the new requirements. 'In a one-sentence order, the Fifth Circuit upended the First Amendment rights of Mississippi citizens seeking to access fully protected speech across social media websites,' NetChoice wrote. The existing block had prevented Mississippi from enforcing the law against nine NetChoice members covered by the law: Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, X, Snapchat, Reddit, Pinterest, Nextdoor and Dreamwitdth. Justice Samuel Alito, who by default handles emergency requests arising from the 5 th Circuit, ordered Mississippi to respond within a week. Alito could then act on the request alone or refer it to the full court for a vote. Mississippi's law requires social media companies to verify users' age and require minors to have express consent from a parent or guardian to use the platform. Covered websites must also work to mitigate minors' exposure to harmful material, and violations carry a $10,000 fine. It was originally set to go into effect on July 1, 2024, the same day the Supreme Court decided NetChoice's First Amendment challenges to Florida and Texas laws that regulate social media companies over accusations of political censorship. The Florida and Texas disputes involve what is known as a facial challenge, meaning NetChoice argues the laws are unconstitutional across the board. The Supreme Court's decision sent the cases back to lower courts with guidance for how to analyze the laws. In Mississippi, however, the judge's most recent injunction did not block the state's law facially. An appointee of the younger former President Bush, U.S. District Judge Halil Suleyman Ozerden only blocked the state's law as applied to NetChoice's members, which involves a different First Amendment analysis. NetChoice argued the 5 th Circuit's lack of explanation in lifting the judge's order is sufficient reason on its own for the Supreme Court to intervene. And regardless, the trade group says the block is needed to protect free speech as the litigation progresses. 'Yet, in stark contrast to the two extensively reasoned district court opinions in this case, the Fifth Circuit's order (entered less than an hour after Respondent submitted a reply brief) explains nothing. This is particularly troubling in the context of a decision with sudden and sweeping implications for accessing fully protected speech,' NetChoice wrote in the application.
