Latest news with #LastWeekTonightwith
Yahoo
09-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Comedy can push back against authoritarianism. We need more of that humor now
In a country where telling the truth can get you deported, comedy remains one of the few safe spaces to say something our government hates, like, "Donald Trump has little felon hands." We think only journalism can keep democracy from dying in the dark. I like to remind people that comedy has a flashlight, too. I teach a college course in the San Francisco Bay area called "Can Comedy Save Democracy?" We focus on satire: humor that exposes truth by mocking power. Students learn to 'punch up' at the powerful, not down at the vulnerable. I cover the comic essays and cartoons of one of our Founding Fathers, Benjamin Franklin. And I love sharing that well-worn phrase, 'Comedy is tragedy plus time' (it's the type of math my students don't find intimidating). But even without the luxury of time, comedy can deliver facts and help people make sense of this moment. Reminding Americans that comedy is a democratic tool feels urgent, especially at a time when silence is the safer strategy for law firms, media outlets, universities and that backbone-less species we call Congress. Around the world, humor serves as both a form of dissent and a workaround to censorship. In my research, I interviewed a Stanford engineering student who finally understood Super PACs thanks to "The Colbert Report." Later, the Annenberg Public Policy Center found that Colbert's satirical Super PAC did more to educate viewers about campaign finance than any mainstream news outlet. Comedy is a gateway to engagement. We're already seeing it with satirical songs like "Hostile Government Takeover" by TikTok user AGiftFromTodd. And comedy-news shows like HBO's "Last Week Tonight with John Oliver" make arcane policy watchable and actionable. (Oliver has helped drive real-world reforms, from the bail industry to chicken farming.) Comedy is protected free speech in the U.S. In Hustler v. Falwell (1988), the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that parody isn't libel. The case involved Hustler's fake ad implying televangelist Jerry Falwell lost his virginity… in an outhouse, with his mother. Gross? But we have the right to offend public figures. Today, I'm alarmed by how progressive comedians are being silenced. In March, so-called free speech champions at the White House Correspondents' Dinner dropped Trump critic Amber Ruffin from the lineup. In April, sincere slacker Seth Rogen's jokes were edited out of the YouTube broadcast of the Breakthrough Prize awards, aka the "Oscars of Science." Organizers blamed time constraints (on YouTube's endless stream?!), but it's telling that the cuts were Rogen's wisecracks criticizing Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Trump, who "single-handedly destroyed all of American science," the uncensored Rogen quipped. There's asymmetry in comic freedom now. While left-leaning comics get cut from programming, right-wing comedians are building media empires. Comedy bros like Theo Von and Joe Rogan — whom Democrats now desperately wish they could clone — have enormous sway, promoting Trump, especially with young men. And of course, there's our Comedian-in-Chief. Trump's jokes, like promising to be a dictator "only on Day 1," cloak authoritarian aims in punchlines. His humor is strategic. Watch his recent address to Congress: It played like a set in a two-drink minimum comedy club. The chamber roared as he mocked funding for "making mice transgender" and "the African nation of Lesotho, which nobody's ever heard of." I must say that comedy isn't always noble. It can spread lies, inflame grievances and seduce people toward anti-democratic ideas — just like other forms of media. But similarly, comedy shapes public judgment. And if some kinds of comedy can sneak truth into the public square disguised as entertainment, if they help us make sense of madness and push back against rising authoritarianism, then shouldn't we make more? After all, when Ben Franklin was asked what the Constitutional Convention had produced, a democracy or a monarchy, didn't he famously say: 'A republic — if you can out-meme the red hats.' Keli Dailey is a graduate of the University of Texas' journalism program, now working as a comedian and media professor at Mills College at Northeastern University in Oakland, Calif. Her work, from the Los Angeles Times to South by Southwest and solo shows, blends sharp reporting with cultural critique and satire. This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Can comedy save democracy? Yes, and we need more of it | Opinion
Yahoo
27-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
He fought against anti-trans bathroom bills a decade ago. Now Michael Hughes is fighting back again
Apr. 27—ROCHESTER — Ten years ago, Rochester resident Michael Hughes, a transgender man, set off a social media firestorm when he posted a selfie of himself in a women's bathroom. At the time, debate was breaking out across the nation about whether trans people should be allowed to use public restrooms that align with their gender identity. States were passing laws limiting which bathrooms and restrooms trans people could use. Thirteen states now have such bans in place. Minnesota is not one of them. Driving such restrictions was a fear that allowing transgender people to use the bathroom of their choice would give male sexual predators license to enter women's bathrooms. Hughes, 55, sought to discredit that fear and turn that argument on its head. With his white-speckled beard, tattoos and cowboy hat, Hughes looks unambiguously male. The point of his selfie: Do you really want a trans man who looks like me in a women's bathroom? His phone blew up. "You don't plan to go viral," Hughes said. "I just wanted (to add my voice) because Minnesota was starting to have those conversations." Hughes' viral moment earned him a mention on "Last Week Tonight with John Oliver" on HBO: "There are many places that Michael would fit in — a tattoo parlor in Reno, playing steel guitar in a Johnny Cash tribute band or on the label of his own barbecue sauce, but in a woman's bathroom, not so much." If things were bad for the transgender community then, they are much worse now. Many believe, including Hughes, that President Trump's election victory last November turned on his attack on Kamala Harris' support for trans people ("Kamala is for they/them, President Trump is for you"). From the moment of taking office, Trump set about marginalizing trans people. Trump's first order, signed on his first day in office, said the government would recognize only two sexes: Male and female. Trump has sought to boot transgender people from the military, though the move has been blocked by the courts. Requests for new or updated passports with gender markers that don't conform with the new federal definition of the sexes are no longer honored. "I feel like they're trying to erase us and maybe eradicate us. When he got elected, we knew he was coming after us," Hughes said. "He made it very clear that we were high on his list." After the online furor created by his bathroom selfies a decade ago, Hughes became a celebrity of sorts, accepting invitations from universities and high schools nationwide to talk about his experience. But soon after Trump's election for a second term, Hughes felt an instinct to be cautious. He was reluctant to go public or use social media to blast Trump's edicts against the trans community. It felt safer to hunker down. He was afraid. He felt hunted. And for the first three months of the Trump presidency, Hughes decided to go back into the closet and stay there. And then he changed his mind. The response to Hughes' bathroom selfies underscored the spectrum of diversity within the trans community. Although the T in LGBTQ refers to a discrete population, it belies the varied nature of the community. And within that community, there were varied reactions to his bathroom selfies — and not all positive. Hughes was accused of showing off his "passing privilege" — a term that refers to Hughes' ability to blend in with cisgender men without them knowing of his trans identity. "I used to watch Luke 'n Bob, Texas play at the North Star Bar. I could just belly up to the bar with a guy in Rochester. And nobody knows the difference," Hughes said. "Obviously, that's not most trans people's experience." Hughes' reply to his trans critics is that he didn't have to go public with his concerns about anti-trans laws and the climate of hate against trans people. He could have easily navigated the world in which he lived without anyone being the wiser of his trans identity. He could have retreated to his "safe, little bubble" and stayed there. Yet Hughes has found it impossible to stay silent. He knows the anguish and vulnerability that trans youth are experiencing. He went through it himself when he was younger. Back then, there was no trans community, no forerunners in Houston to guide and counsel him, to help him understand what he was going through. "I'm one of the — I hate the term because I don't like getting older — trans elders," Hughes said. "I just feel like I've been doing this for 25 years. I transitioned a long time ago, and I have a lot of knowledge I've gained along the way." Born and raised in Houston, Hughes later moved to a small East Texas town and found himself "bullied horribly" in high school. He said his own parents were "amazing" but also conservative and old-fashioned. His mom was raised on a farm in economically straitened times. Transgender was a concept entirely outside the ken of her experience. The sense of being an outcast was offset by the embrace of a strong family. Growing up, Hughes was allowed to self-express, even though there were occasional rows with his mom. In school, Hughes cut his hair short, played with boys and wore sports jerseys and cowboy boots. When Hughes came out as a lesbian at 19, it just "wrecked" his mom. "She didn't handle it well," he said. But even then, Hughes couldn't shake a sense of non-belonging. Through his early 20s, Hughes didn't feel like he fit in with any particular group. Though assigned a female at birth, Hughes didn't relate to women his age. Neither did he fit in with cisgender men. "I felt like a fraud," Hughes said. "I never liked calling myself a lesbian. I never felt like it fit me. I just kind of went through my early 20s feeling like there was no place to fit in." That feeling of being disconnected dissipated somewhat with his growing realization that he wasn't entirely alone, that his experiences and search for identity connected him to a community. In his own way, that's the message he tries to tell young people going through what he went through. "I felt a sense of responsibility. There's all these young people, and I mean, it's still so hard." Transgender and nonbinary youths face extraordinary mental health challenges. One study, released by the Trevor Project last year, found that suicide attempts among transgender and gender nonconforming teenagers increased by as much as 72% in states that passed anti-transgender laws. If there is cause for optimism, the history of cultural and social attitudes is that they can change relatively quickly. Decades ago, there was widespread opposition to gay marriage and homosexuality until there was a sea change in attitudes. The progress was halting, and there was backtracking. But advances in understanding occurred nonetheless. One challenge the transgender community faces is that there are so few people in the cisgender world who personally know a trans person. They don't know a transgender person who can humanize them for them. And that void is often filled with hate. Estimates suggest that there are only between 0.6% to 3% of the population that identifies as transgender. And many are afraid of speaking out. Hughes knows the feeling. Soon after going viral with his bathroom photos, Hughes received an invitation to speak to a class at Byron High School. He was hesitant at first. Though he had given talks at universities, the thought of speaking in front of high school students terrified him. His memories of being bullied in high school were still fresh. Still he resolved to do it. A few days before the class, the teacher warned him that a couple of male students had asked whether attendance at the trans discussion was mandatory. They didn't want to be part of it. She told them that if they felt uncomfortable, they could opt out On the day of the discussion, Hughes showed up to find nearly all of the students congregating near the front of the class, except for two boys who were sitting at the back of the class. Hughes could tell from their body language that they were uncomfortable. Hughes started his talk and then began taking questions. The students were "super-inquisitive." Their questions tumbled forth. As the back-and-forth progressed, Hughes noticed that the two boys had moved up chairs closer to the front of the class. Soon, they were asking questions of Hughes. After the class ended, one of the boys approached Hughes and told him he had thought about not coming to class. But he decided to attend and was glad he did. Hughes seemed like a "regular guy," the boy told Hughes. "I said, 'I wasn't born one, but, you know, I'd like to think of myself as just a regular guy,'" Hughes said.
Yahoo
01-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
HBO's John Oliver faces lawsuit from health insurance executive over Medicaid monologue
A health insurance executive filed a defamation lawsuit against HBO's John Oliver on Friday, claiming the liberal comic falsely told viewers he believed "it's OK if people have s--t on them for days" when discussing the healthcare needs of a young man who relies on diapers and in-home bathing services to maintain proper hygiene. Former AmeriHealth Caritas medical director Dr. Brian Morley believes an April 2024 segment on "Last Week Tonight with John Oliver" about Americans losing Medicaid health care coverage destroyed his reputation and personal well-being. Oliver spent the entire episode sounding the alarm about "Medicaid unwinding" with a lengthy monologue that suggested Managed Care Organizations such as AmeriHealth Caritas have worked to take away healthcare. When examining the situation of a young patient who lost access to in-home bathing and diaper changing, Oliver played an edited audio excerpt from a 2017 testimony in which Morley said about a "similar patient", "People have bowel movements every day where they don't completely clean themselves, and we don't fuss over [them] too much. People are allowed to be dirty. I would allow him to be dirty for a couple of days." Oliver then said, "F--k that doctor with a rust canoe, I hope he gets tetanus of the balls," and told the HBO audience the testimony was authentic. Liberal British Hbo Host Tells Colbert He's Staying In America And 'Going Down With The Titanic' "When I first heard that, I thought that had to have been taken out of context. There is no way a doctor, a licensed physician, would testify in a hearing that he thinks it's OK if people have s--t on them for days. So, we got the full hearing, and I'm not going to play it, I'm just going to tell you, he said it, he meant it, and it made me want to punch a hole in the wall," Oliver told viewers. Read On The Fox News App In a lawsuit filed Friday in New York's Southern District that also named Partially Important Productions as a defendant, Morley alleged that Oliver "falsely" told viewers he "testified in a Medicaid hearing that 'he thinks it's okay if people have s--t on them for days,'" and "illegally denied Medicaid services to—a young man who has severe mental impairment, was harnessed in a wheelchair, wears diapers, and required in-home bathing and diaper changing because he could do neither himself." Morley's lawyer wrote in the filing that Oliver's "false accusations were designed to spark outrage, and they did." "Oliver's feigned outrage at Dr. Morley was fabricated for ratings and profits at the expense of Dr. Morley's reputation and personal well-being," the lawsuit said. Liberal Comedian Hopes His Show Speaks To Trump Voters Despite Fierce Opposition To The President "Defendants expressly asserted that they were not taking Dr. Morley's testimony out of context, knowing they had intentionally manipulated the context and their broadcast to convey a defamatory meaning that they knew was untrue," the suit continued, noting that if Oliver truly wanted the full hearing he would have known he was not speaking about an immobile or bedridden person, and that "Morley's testimony stood for the opposite of the defamatory meanings they ascribed to it." "Morley did not equate wiping poorly with leaving anyone sitting in their own feces for days—whether disabled, incontinent, wearing diapers or not. He testified to the opposite. He testified that people who, for instance, are immobile, laying in their own bowel movements, cannot toilet transfer, or cannot bathe themselves—in other words, people like the individual Defendants depicted—require significant in-home care, including 'to have someone wiping them and getting the feces off' to ensure 'medical safety,'" the lawsuit stated. The lawsuit alleges that Oliver also knew the patient Morley was actually talking about "was not confined to a wheelchair, was not incontinent, did not wear diapers, independently toilet transferred, was independently mobile, could change his or her own clothes, bathed him or herself, and did not require in-home diaper changing or assistance to bathe generally," but failed to disclose that to the HBO audience. John Oliver Offers Justice Thomas Millions To 'Get The F--- Off The Supreme Court' Oliver also failed to disclose that Morley approved six in-home visits per week to the actual patient, according to the lawsuit, which claims "Last Week Tonight" took the testimony out of context. Morley believes Oliver's accusations are false and were made negligently with actual malice. He has demanded that HBO retract the "false and defamatory" statements and is seeking "reputational, emotional, and mental damages in an amount exceeding $75,000 and to be determined at trial." Morley is also seeking punitive damages. HBO and parent company Warner Bros. Discovery did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News article source: HBO's John Oliver faces lawsuit from health insurance executive over Medicaid monologue
Fox News
01-04-2025
- Health
- Fox News
HBO's John Oliver faces lawsuit from health insurance executive over Medicaid monologue
A health insurance executive filed a defamation lawsuit against HBO's John Oliver on Friday, claiming the liberal comic falsely told viewers he believed "it's OK if people have s--t on them for days" when discussing the healthcare needs of a young man who relies on diapers and in-home bathing services to maintain proper hygiene. Former AmeriHealth Caritas medical director Dr. Brian Morley believes an April 2024 segment on "Last Week Tonight with John Oliver" about Americans losing Medicaid health care coverage destroyed his reputation and personal well-being. Oliver spent the entire episode sounding the alarm about "Medicaid unwinding" with a lengthy monologue that suggested Managed Care Organizations such as AmeriHealth Caritas have worked to take away healthcare. When examining the situation of a young patient who lost access to in-home bathing and diaper changing, Oliver played an edited audio excerpt from a 2017 testimony in which Morley said about a "similar patient", "People have bowel movements every day where they don't completely clean themselves, and we don't fuss over [them] too much. People are allowed to be dirty. I would allow him to be dirty for a couple of days." Oliver then said, "F--k that doctor with a rust canoe, I hope he gets tetanus of the balls," and told the HBO audience the testimony was authentic. "When I first heard that, I thought that had to have been taken out of context. There is no way a doctor, a licensed physician, would testify in a hearing that he thinks it's OK if people have s--t on them for days. So, we got the full hearing, and I'm not going to play it, I'm just going to tell you, he said it, he meant it, and it made me want to punch a hole in the wall," Oliver told viewers. In a lawsuit filed Friday in New York's Southern District that also named Partially Important Productions as a defendant, Morley alleged that Oliver "falsely" told viewers he "testified in a Medicaid hearing that 'he thinks it's okay if people have s--t on them for days,'" and "illegally denied Medicaid services to—a young man who has severe mental impairment, was harnessed in a wheelchair, wears diapers, and required in-home bathing and diaper changing because he could do neither himself." Morley's lawyer wrote in the filing that Oliver's "false accusations were designed to spark outrage, and they did." "Oliver's feigned outrage at Dr. Morley was fabricated for ratings and profits at the expense of Dr. Morley's reputation and personal well-being," the lawsuit said. "Defendants expressly asserted that they were not taking Dr. Morley's testimony out of context, knowing they had intentionally manipulated the context and their broadcast to convey a defamatory meaning that they knew was untrue," the suit continued, noting that if Oliver truly wanted the full hearing he would have known he was not speaking about an immobile or bedridden person, and that "Morley's testimony stood for the opposite of the defamatory meanings they ascribed to it." "Morley did not equate wiping poorly with leaving anyone sitting in their own feces for days—whether disabled, incontinent, wearing diapers or not. He testified to the opposite. He testified that people who, for instance, are immobile, laying in their own bowel movements, cannot toilet transfer, or cannot bathe themselves—in other words, people like the individual Defendants depicted—require significant in-home care, including 'to have someone wiping them and getting the feces off' to ensure 'medical safety,'" the lawsuit stated. The lawsuit alleges that Oliver also knew the patient Morley was actually talking about "was not confined to a wheelchair, was not incontinent, did not wear diapers, independently toilet transferred, was independently mobile, could change his or her own clothes, bathed him or herself, and did not require in-home diaper changing or assistance to bathe generally," but failed to disclose that to the HBO audience. Oliver also failed to disclose that Morley approved six in-home visits per week to the actual patient, according to the lawsuit, which claims "Last Week Tonight" took the testimony out of context. Morley believes Oliver's accusations are false and were made negligently with actual malice. He has demanded that HBO retract the "false and defamatory" statements and is seeking "reputational, emotional, and mental damages in an amount exceeding $75,000 and to be determined at trial." Morley is also seeking punitive damages. HBO and parent company Warner Bros. Discovery did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital.
Yahoo
13-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Bill that protects free speech, journalists and guards against frivolous lawsuits heads to Senate
Rep. James Reavis, D-Billings, speaks before the House Judiciary Committee about House Bill 292 which would prohibit strategic lawsuits against public participation. (Photo screenshot via Montana Public Affairs Network) For now, it's safe to say that no bill may ever be quite as popular as House Bill 292, which unanimously passed the Montana House of Representatives on Thursday and would protect citizens and journalists from 'SLAPP' lawsuits. If passed into law by Montana, after going through the Senate and the governor's desk, it would give new protections to those targeted by 'SLAPP' lawsuits, which stands for 'strategic lawsuit against public participation.' The bill, cosponsored by Reps. Tom Millett, R-Marion, and James Reavis, D-Billings, demonstrated bipartisan and overwhelming support throughout its journey in the House, where it passed the Judiciary Committee 20-0, and then passed both readings on the full House floor by votes of 100-0, and 99-0. The bill will now head to the Montana Senate. SLAPP lawsuits, which have garnered attention increasingly, including an entire segment on the popular HBO news show, 'Last Week Tonight with John Oliver,' are often filed by large corporations or sometimes even government entities to try to prevent the public or media from bringing facts to the public's attention. Often, the lawsuits are funded by corporations or businesses that have extensive legal resources or in-house attorneys, while those speaking out against them must hire their own attorneys, and may not have the legal resources to challenge it in court, thus stifling or completely ending criticism or investigation into wrongdoing. As many advocates argue, the purpose in SLAPP lawsuits isn't to win, it's to stop the opposing party from being able to fight, using wealth and the justice system to force opponents to stop. 'The real goal is to entangle the defendant in expensive litigation and stifle their ability to participate in constitutionally related activities,' Millett said. Both sponsors of the bill told fellow lawmakers that the legislation is modeled after other states that have adopted similar laws. The new anti-SLAPP bill allows courts to quickly dismiss SLAPP lawsuits, while forcing those who brought the suit to pay for the other side's attorney fees. Reavis and Millett said that provides a deterrent from bringing bad faith lawsuits. And both sponsors pointed out that the legislation was consistent with freedom of speech, freedom of press, and freedom of association protections found in the state and federal constitutions. 'The mandatory nature of attorneys' fees will help stop the filing in the first place,' Millett said. As attorney, Reavis said fellow lawyers will look at these cases differently. 'It will discourage the practice because an attorney will have to warn their client that they could be on the hook for the other side's attorneys' fees,' Reavis said. Jacqueline Lenmark, one of five Montana Commissioners on the Uniform Law Commission, said her group unanimously supports the measure, which has been adopted in 32 other states. The bill also had the support of some larger, higher profile groups, like the Motion Picture Association of America, which represents large news organizations as well as small independent documentary filmmakers, who are often sued to stop reporting on a project. 'This protects everyone's free speech against costly and unnecessary litigation,' said MPAA lobbyist Jessie Luther. Al Smith of the Montana Trial Lawyers Association said his organization supports the efforts, too. 'Bad attorneys and their clients get dinged for bringing bad suits, and good attorneys get fees because they brought a valid lawsuit,' Smith said. He said as Montana law stands currently, even fighting a SLAPP lawsuit can take years and thousands of dollars. 'This speeds it up and protects free-speech rights,' Smith said. Jay Adkisson, an attorney in Nevada, told about his experiences as an attorney being sued. He said he was once sued for $4.7 billion and also faced a $20 million SLAPP lawsuit in California, just for writing about a court opinion for He said that both were eventually dismissed, but both could also stifle free speech and a free press. And both lawsuits took an extensive amount of time just to fight, even though he was successful, and the claims were preposterous. 'These cases are not about winning in court, but about wasting the resources of those who speak out,' Millett said. 'We need to make it harder for entities to abuse the legal system.'
