Latest news with #mediaoutlets
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
The Sudden Panic That SCOTUS Might Overturn Marriage Equality Misses the Real Threat
Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily. Over the past few days, a long-shot request for the Supreme Court to overturn marriage equality has snowballed into a major news story. Influential media outlets have covered it closely, and prominent politicians have seized upon it to warn that same-sex marriage is still under attack. It is certainly true that no one should take this hard-won right for granted. But any panic about this particular challenge—brought by former Kentucky clerk Kim Davis—is unwarranted. There is essentially no chance that the court will entertain Davis' plea to abolish gay people's constitutional right to marry; the odds round down to zero. And although apprehension about the justices' hostility toward LGBTQ+ equality is justified, marriage does not yet appear to be in their crosshairs. The most important thing to understand about Davis' appeal is that it has a small likelihood of being taken up in the first place. Her lawyers have merely asked the court to consider it, filing what's known as a petition for certiorari. (They did so in July, and it's unclear why the request is garnering so much attention now.) SCOTUS receives about 8,000 of these petitions every year and grants just a tiny number of them—in recent years, fewer than 70. Anyone can ask the court to hear their appeal. And while it is technically accurate to say that the justices will consider her request, that does not mean they will resolve it on the merits. It simply indicates that they will have the opportunity to take it up, an opportunity that they are unlikely to accept. Why? Most obviously, Davis' petition does not center on the question of marriage equality. It stems from a long-running battle over her refusal to grant a marriage license to a same-sex couple shortly after the Supreme Court affirmed their right to wed in 2015's Obergefell v. Hodges. Davis, then a county clerk in Kentucky, claimed that her antigay religious beliefs did not allow her to provide the license. A federal judge briefly jailed her for contempt of court, and the couple later sued her for violating their rights. The two men prevailed at trial, and a jury awarded them $100,000 in damages. It is this judgment that Davis now asks the high court to overturn: She argues that she should've been allowed to raise the First Amendment's free exercise clause as a defense against the couple's lawsuit. Davis' lawyers devote almost all of their petition to this topic. Only at the end do they tack on a request—almost an afterthought—for the Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell altogether. But, again, the actual legal question in the case is not whether Obergefell was rightly decided; it is whether state officials can wield religious liberty as a shield when they engage in unlawful discrimination. The answer to this question is plainly no. Two conservative judges appointed by Donald Trump have already explained that a state official cannot hide behind the First Amendment to justify discrimination when acting as an agent of the government. It is highly doubtful that the court will reconsider that conclusion, which rests on the fundamental principle that the government has no right to infringe on people's rights. SCOTUS can take up Davis' appeal only if four of the justices vote to hear it. And it's difficult to envision four members of the current court agreeing to do so given the open-and-shut failure of Davis' main argument. But even if they did, the court would still have no grounds to consider her shoehorned assault on Obergefell itself. Reevaluating that precedent is entirely unnecessary to resolve the real dispute. And as the appeals court pointed out, Davis' lawyers actually forfeited their argument against Obergefell by declining to raise it in the district court. Their failure to preserve this issue gives SCOTUS one more reason to ignore it. So even if this Supreme Court were eager to put marriage equality in its crosshairs, Davis' appeal would be a terrible vehicle for it. But the court doesn't seem to have much of an appetite to kill off Obergefell right now. That assurance may ring hollow in light of Roe v. Wade's demise just three years ago. A handful of clues from the conservative supermajority, however, indicate that there are not currently five votes to end marriage equality. Or, perhaps more accurately, there are not five justices who want to eradicate same-sex couples' fundamental right to wed. At least three members of this supermajority have dropped hints that they do not wish to revisit Obergefell. Just two years after the decision, Chief Justice John Roberts seems to have quietly joined a follow-up ruling affirming its protections for same-sex parents, suggesting that he had made his peace with marriage equality. Justice Brett Kavanaugh has called same-sex marriage a 'very important right' and declared that gay Americans 'cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth.' In his most important opinion about precedent, Justice Neil Gorsuch went out of his way to signal that Americans have 'reliance interests' on their ability to marry. Roberts and Gorsuch, of course, also voted to protect gay employees from workplace discrimination in 2020's Bostock v. Clayton County. And while Kavanaugh dissented from that decision, he did so apologetically, offering a sentimental tribute to gay Americans' 'extraordinary vision, tenacity, and grit.' The justice also took pains to note that the death of Roe v. Wade 'does not threaten or cast doubt on' marriage equality. The point here is not that these three justices think Obergefell was correct; they almost certainly don't. But it seems safe to conclude that they are not preoccupied by an unrelenting desire to harm gay people—or that they, at a minimum, understand that overturning Obergefell would be massively unpopular. Like every justice, this trio has an agenda. They know that their court has limited time, resources, and political capital to effectuate it. So they have to prioritize. And overturning marriage equality does not appear to be anywhere close to a top priority. Savvier anti-LGBTQ+ groups, like Alliance Defending Freedom, recognize this fact. It's presumably why these organizations have not directly asked SCOTUS to reverse Obergefell. (Davis is represented by the far smaller and less prestigious Liberty Counsel.) That's not to say that gay rights are safe at this Supreme Court. Far from it: They are under active attack, albeit in a subtler way. In the past several years, the conservative supermajority has weaponized the First Amendment to legalize discrimination against same-sex couples in the marketplace. It has forced public schools to censor LGBTQ+ books and compelled states to fund private schools that discriminate against LGBTQ+ students. Next year, it will probably strike down state bans on LGBTQ+ 'conversion therapy' for minors. Rather than take aim at Obergefell itself, the Republican-appointed justices have settled on curtailing gay rights in the name of religious liberty and free speech. They have also blessed overt discrimination against transgender people, cruelly denying them equal protection under the law. These rulings merit far more attention and scorn than a long-shot bid to take down marriage equality. Obergefell is not Roe v. Wade. It did not unite the Republican Party in a tireless crusade to change the law. Indeed, Trump has expressed no interest in ending marriage equality, even as his administration has enacted other anti-LGBTQ+ policies. A couple of sitting justices would likely leap at the opportunity to cast Obergefell into the dustbin of history. But it is pretty clear that they haven't yet secured a majority for their mission. And in the unlikely event that they do, Kim Davis' case will not be the vehicle they use to eradicate the equal dignity of same-sex couples. Solve the daily Crossword
CBC
02-07-2025
- Business
- CBC
Media outlets urge Manitoba government to buy more ads on their platforms, consider tax credit for salaries
Several journalism managers say the Manitoba government can help their media outlets survive without spending any additional money. A public hearing on local journalism was told Wednesday that the government can support outlets by reallocating some of the advertising money it spends on other platforms, such as international social media sites, toward their operations. "It's not new money. It's money that already exists, and to redirect them from American tech giants and put this money back into local journalism," Sophie Gaulin, editor-in-chief of the French-language La Liberté newspaper, said after presenting to the all-party committee. An all-party committee is looking into ways to support legacy media outlets after many newspapers, television and radio outlets have either disappeared or reduced services over the years. Gaulin said her weekly publication is "alive and well," but over time, they've printed fewer pages, because advertising has declined and their previous page count is no longer affordable. Her publication now prints 20 pages a week, rather than the 32-page average when she took over the newspaper in 2009. The government's advertising spend in her publication has also dropped over time, she said, as the province prioritizes spending on online technology giants such as Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, where an increasing number of people are spending their time. Gaulin recommends the Manitoba government dedicate 25 per cent of its advertising to local journalism outlets, which would mirror the spending directive for Ontario's four largest government agencies. "This is one of the simplest, most effective actions you can take," she told the hearing at the RBC Convention Centre in Winnipeg. Pilipino Express, a volunteer-run news magazine serving the Filipino community, also requested an increase in government advertising spending but didn't specify an exact amount. Crown corporations and individual MLAs buy ads from Pilipino Express, but not the government itself, the hearing was told. The publication is funded entirely through advertisements. "We're not greedy," editor-in-chief Emmie Joaquin said. "I know the government has an advertising budget, so a little bit of that would really help the local media — not only us but other ethnic TV, radio, especially those that don't have that much funding." The federal government provides financial support to journalism through various grants and tax credits. Government funding accounts for approximately 70 per cent of CBC/Radio-Canada's budget. Ask seems reasonable: Tories Progressive Conservative MLA Greg Nesbitt, who owned a few newspapers in western Manitoba before selling them to his son, sits on the all-party committee. He said the ask from these media outlets seems reasonable. "After all, that's the audience [the Manitoba government is] looking for, so they should be advertising in Manitoba publications." A lack of government advertising may have sunk the committee's efforts to hold its first hearing in Gimli last week. The government didn't advertise the event in local media but relied instead on promoting the event through its own channels, including a news release and the website, as first reported in the Winnipeg Free Press. The hearing was cancelled because no one signed up to speak. "Many people have said to me, 'We didn't see anything about this committee. How do we find out about it?' There was one news release, that was it," Nesbitt said. After cancelling the Gimli hearing, the province bought ads in the Winnipeg Free Press, the Brandon Sun and some rural media outlets, a government spokesperson said Wednesday. In addition to the request for higher ad spending, French-language radio station Envol 91, along with La Liberté, asked at Wednesday's hearing that the government adopt a refundable tax credit on journalist salaries. The idea was adopted in Quebec in 2019 to support print media outlets. "That tax credit would really be something that would help us not just survive, but thrive, and will help us grow and be able to, in our case, reach out to as many francophones and people that are interested in French as possible," said Denis-Michel Thibeault, executive director of Envol 91 FM. More hearings planned Meanwhile, U Multicultural — a multilingual TV channel and radio station — is proposing the government develop a media fund that supports operational costs and training for community outlets. The outlet was granted a broadcast licence for free over-the-air carriage for its TV channel in the Winnipeg area, on Channel 14, along with a radio station license at 88.7 FM. A launch date hasn't been announced. NDP MLA Robert Loiselle, who is chairing the committee, said additional public hearings are planned next week in Brandon and Winkler, and there will be a virtual meeting.
Reuters
25-06-2025
- Business
- Reuters
Worldline shares fall over 20% after media investigation
June 25 (Reuters) - Worldline ( opens new tab shares fell over 20% on Wednesday after an investigation by 21 European media outlets alleged the French digital payments company covered up client fraud to protect revenue. Responding to the reports, Worldline said in a statement that since 2023 it has strengthened merchant risk controls and terminated non-compliant client relationships. The "Dirty Payments" investigation, which the media oultets said is based on confidential internal documents and data from Worldline, alleged the company accepted "questionable" clients across Europe, including pornography, gambling and dating sites. The company said it has conducted a "thorough review" of its high-brand-risk portfolio, such as online casinos, stockbroking and adult dating services, since 2023, affecting merchants representing 130 million euros in run-rate revenue in 2024. It said it maintains "zero-tolerance" for non-compliance and engages regularly with regulatory authorities. Worldline did not immediately respond to Reuters' request for further comment beyond its statement.
New York Times
24-06-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
America's Adversaries Are Gaining the Global Megaphone
America's rivals celebrated as the Trump administration set out to dismantle its global influence and information infrastructure, including the media outlets that had helped market the United States as the world's moral and cultural authority. The editor in chief of RT, the Kremlin-backed news network, crowed about President Trump's 'awesome decision' to shut down Voice of America, the federally funded network that reports in countries with limited press freedom. 'Today is a holiday for me and my colleagues!' Hu Xijin, a former editor in chief of China's state-run outlet Global Times, wrote that the paralysis of Voice of America and Radio Free Asia was 'really gratifying' and, he hoped, 'irreversible.' A top aide to Prime Minister Viktor Orban of Hungary posted that he 'couldn't be happier' about the administration's move in February to gut the agency that distributed foreign media funding. Officials in Cambodia and Cuba also welcomed the cuts. In the months since, China, Russia and other U.S. rivals have moved to commandeer the communications space abandoned by the Americans. They have pumped more money into their own global media endeavors, expanded social outreach programs abroad and cranked up the volume when publicizing popular cultural exports. Foreign policy experts say the Trump administration is not just losing its grip on the global megaphone but handing it off to its eager adversaries. In doing so, they said, the United States is relinquishing its primacy as a global influencer and neglecting its defenses against the damaging narratives and disinformation that could fill the vacuum. 'What we're doing, in a sense, is playing into their hands,' said Catherine Luther, a professor at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, who has studied Russian influence. 'These states tend to be the leaders in creating the playbook for other countries to use.' Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Yahoo
24-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump's deportation crackdown is ‘beyond not normal'
The Trump administration's immigration crackdown has morphed into something much darker, says attorney Dean Obeidallah; sweeping up immigrants, legal residents, and even U.S. citizens. Multiple federal judges have ruled against Trump's deportation crackdown, yet he continues to defy or circumvent court orders. What began as immigration enforcement now appears to be part of a broader effort to dismantle the rule of law. From arresting judges to investigating law firms, media outlets, and univ
