Tag: Bar

Categories
Politics

A Lengthy-Shot Push to Bar Trump in 2024 as an ‘Insurrectionist’

A Long-Shot Push to Bar Trump in 2024 as an ‘Insurrectionist’

WASHINGTON – Demokraten und liberale Gruppen, die entschlossen sind, einen Weg zu finden, dem ehemaligen Präsidenten Donald J. Trump die Rückkehr ins Amt zu verwehren, bereiten eine Vielzahl von Möglichkeiten vor, ihn zu disqualifizieren, darunter die Ausarbeitung neuer Gesetze und die Vorbereitung einer Flut von Gerichtsverfahren, in denen versucht wird, ein Obskures zu verwenden Klausel in der Verfassung, ihn als Aufständischen zu brandmarken.

Die Pläne laufen auf einen außerordentlich langwierigen Versuch hinaus, das zu erreichen, was mehrere Ermittlungen gegen Mr. Trump nicht erreicht haben: jede Chance auszuschließen, dass der ehemalige Präsident die Macht wiedererlangen könnte, ob die Wähler es wollen oder nicht. Sie spiegeln die wachsende Besorgnis unter Demokraten und liberalen Aktivisten wider, die versuchen, einen Weg zu finden, die politische Karriere des ehemaligen Präsidenten und der Beamten zu beenden, die ihm geholfen haben, an der Präsidentschaft festzuhalten, unter anderem durch mehrere neue und in einigen Fällen obskure Strategien.

Demokraten und einige Anti-Trump-Republikaner haben Angst, dass Merrick B. Garland, der Generalstaatsanwalt, keine strafrechtlichen Schritte gegen Mr. Trump wegen seiner Bemühungen einleiten wird, die Wahlen von 2020 zu stürzen, die in der gewaltsamen Erstürmung des Kapitols am 6. Januar gipfelten , 2021. Selbst wenn Mr. Trump wegen eines Verbrechens angeklagt und verurteilt würde, gibt es kein Gesetz, das es selbst einem inhaftierten Schwerverbrecher verbietet, Präsident zu werden.

Gleichzeitig ist Mr. Trump der weithin vermutete Spitzenkandidat für die republikanische Präsidentschaftsnominierung im Jahr 2024, dessen Popularität bei der Basis seiner Partei durch die hochkarätigen Anhörungen des Repräsentantenhauses in diesem Jahr, die die Breite seiner Bemühungen um eine Umkehr offenbaren, ungeschmälert zu sein scheint eine demokratische Wahl.

Einige der Bemühungen, seine Rückkehr zu blockieren, finden in den Staaten statt, in denen die gemeinnützige Organisation Free Speech For People und andere Gruppen wie Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics Klagen gegen Gesetzgeber eingereicht haben, die an Mr. Trumps Versuchen beteiligt waren, sein Jahr 2020 rückgängig zu machen Verlust.

Der Vorstoß gewann diese Woche an Fahrt, als ein Richter in New Mexico Couy Griffin von seinem Posten als Kommissar des Otero County in New Mexico entfernte und ihn wegen seiner Teilnahme an den Unruhen vom 6. Januar und wegen seiner Hilfe bei der Verbreitung der Wahllügen, die ihn inspirierten, als Aufständischen brandmarkte . Die Klage des Richters gegen Mr. Griffin, den Gründer von Cowboys for Trump, der Anfang dieses Jahres wegen Hausfriedensbruchs verurteilt wurde, als er während des Angriffs Barrikaden vor dem Kapitol durchbrach, war das erste Mal seit mehr als einem Jahrhundert, dass ein Amtsträger davon ausgeschlossen wurde Dienst unter dem verfassungsrechtlichen Verbot von Aufständischen, die ein Amt innehaben.

Noah Bookbinder, Präsident von Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, der überparteilichen Überwachungsorganisation, die gegen Herrn Griffin Klage eingereicht hat, sagte, das Urteil des Richters sende eine klare Botschaft, dass die Ereignisse vom 6. Januar als Aufstand qualifiziert seien und dass diejenigen, die an der „Planung , Mobilisierung und Anstiftung“ der Gewalt an diesem Tag, einschließlich Herrn Trump, aus dem Amt ausgeschlossen werden könnten.

Er sagte, seine Gruppe schaue sich „streng an“, wie man solche Herausforderungen gegen den ehemaligen Präsidenten verfolgen könne.

„Es gibt eine enorme Menge an Beweisen über die Rolle von Donald Trump bei den Bemühungen, die Wahl zu kippen und den Angriff vom 6. Januar anzustacheln“, sagte Mr. Bookbinder. „Es scheint, als gäbe es einen ernsthaften Grund dafür, dass es bei Donald Trump Anwendung finden könnte.“

Progressive Aktivisten haben sich auch mit Außenministern getroffen und Briefe an Beamte geschickt, die Wahlen überwachen, um sie davon zu überzeugen, ihre Autorität zu nutzen, um jeden, der an dem Angriff auf das Kapitol vom 6. Januar beteiligt war, 2024 von der Wahl auszuschließen. Wahlbeamte insgesamt 50 Bundesstaaten und der District of Columbia haben bereits Briefe erhalten, in denen sie aufgefordert werden, Mr. Trump von der Abstimmung auszuschließen.

Wichtige Enthüllungen aus den Anhörungen vom 6. Januar

Karte 1 von 9

Wichtige Enthüllungen aus den Anhörungen vom 6. Januar

Anklage gegen Trump erheben. Der Ausschuss des Repräsentantenhauses, der den Angriff vom 6. Januar untersucht, legt eine umfassende Darstellung der Bemühungen von Präsident Donald J. Trump vor, die Wahlen von 2020 zu stürzen. Hier sind die Hauptthemen, die sich bisher aus acht öffentlichen Anhörungen herauskristallisiert haben:

Wichtige Enthüllungen aus den Anhörungen vom 6. Januar

Pence unter Druck setzen. Laut Zeugenaussagen des Gremiums während der dritten Anhörung übte Herr Trump weiterhin Druck auf Vizepräsident Mike Pence aus, einem Plan zur Aufhebung seines Verlusts zuzustimmen, selbst nachdem ihm mitgeteilt wurde, dass dieser illegal sei. Das Komitee zeigte, wie Mr. Trumps Aktionen seine Anhänger dazu veranlassten, das Kapitol zu stürmen und Mr. Pence um sein Leben zu fliehen.

Und es wird am Capitol Hill gearbeitet, wo die Demokraten Gesetze zur Durchsetzung des Verbots des 14. Zusatzartikels ausgearbeitet haben.

„Wenn er sich entscheidet, für ein Amt zu kandidieren, sind wir bereit, seine Wählbarkeit gemäß Abschnitt 3 der 14 . Trumpf. „Es ist schwer, zu einem anderen Schluss zu kommen, als dass er gemäß dem 14. Verfassungszusatz von öffentlichen Ämtern ausgeschlossen ist.“

Eineinhalb Jahre nach dem Ausscheiden von Herrn Trump sehen die Demokraten ihn weiterhin als ernsthafte Gefahr für das Land und – selbst nach einer Sonderermittleruntersuchung, zwei Amtsenthebungen, einem großen Wahlsieg im Jahr 2020 und einer aufschlussreichen Kongressuntersuchung zu Herrn Trump. Trumps Bemühungen, die Wahl zu kippen – viele sind zunehmend besorgt, dass er an die Macht zurückkehren könnte.

Wie Reporter der Times über Politik berichten. Wir verlassen uns darauf, dass unsere Journalisten unabhängige Beobachter sind. Während also Mitarbeiter der Times wählen dürfen, dürfen sie keine Kandidaten unterstützen oder für politische Zwecke werben. Dazu gehört die Teilnahme an Märschen oder Kundgebungen zur Unterstützung einer Bewegung oder das Spenden oder Sammeln von Geldern für politische Kandidaten oder Wahlangelegenheiten.

Ein Sprecher von Herrn Trump antwortete nicht auf eine Bitte um Stellungnahme, aber die Anwälte von Herrn Trump sind sich bewusst, dass sie möglicherweise solche Herausforderungen bewältigen müssen, um ihn in mehreren Bundesstaaten auf dem Wahlzettel zu halten, so Personen, die ihre Gespräche kennen. Sie haben die Klagen auf Landesebene gegen andere Beamte genau beobachtet.

Der wenig diskutierte dritte Abschnitt des 14. Zusatzartikels, der während des Wiederaufbaus angenommen wurde, um Mitglieder der Konföderation zu bestrafen, erklärt, dass „niemand“ „ein ziviles oder militärisches Amt unter den Vereinigten Staaten oder unter irgendeinem anderen Staat bekleiden darf, der es hat zuvor einen Eid geleistet“ hatte, „die Verfassung zu unterstützen“, sich dann „an einem Aufstand oder einer Rebellion gegen dieselbe beteiligt oder ihren Feinden Hilfe oder Trost geleistet“ hatte.

Bundesanwälte aus der Zeit des Wiederaufbaus reichten Zivilklagen vor Gericht ein, um mit der Konföderation verbundene Beamte zu verdrängen, und der Kongress weigerte sich laut dem Congressional Research Service in einigen Fällen, Mitglieder aufzunehmen. Aber vor Mr. Griffins Sturz in dieser Woche wurde die Änderung das letzte Mal 1919 durchgesetzt, als der Kongress ein sozialistisches Mitglied ablehnte, das beschuldigt wurde, Deutschland während des Ersten Weltkriegs Hilfe und Trost geleistet zu haben.

Nach dem Angriff auf das Kapitol vom 6. Januar haben liberale Gruppen erfolglos versucht, den 14. Verfassungszusatz zu nutzen, um eine Reihe von Gesetzgebern zu disqualifizieren, darunter die republikanischen Abgeordneten von Arizona, Paul Gosar und Andy Biggs, und Mark Finchem, ein Staatsvertreter, der für das Amt des Sekretärs kandidiert des Staates mit Mr. Trumps Billigung. Sie haben auch versucht und sind gescheitert, die Verfassungsklausel zu verwenden, um Senator Ron Johnson und die Abgeordneten Tom Tiffany und Scott Fitzgerald, allesamt Republikaner aus Wisconsin, auszuschließen; Vertreterin Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republikanerin von Georgia; und Repräsentantin Madison Cawthorn, Republikanerin von North Carolina.

Ein Berufungsgericht entschied im Mai, dass Teilnehmern an einem Aufstand gegen die Regierung das Amt verwehrt werden könnte, aber das Ziel dieses Falls, Mr. Cawthorn, hatte bereits seine Vorwahl verloren, was die Angelegenheit im Wesentlichen strittig machte.

In der Anfechtung der Kandidatur von Frau Greene übernahm ein Richter die Definition der Kläger, dass der Angriff auf das Kapitol vom 6. Januar ein Aufstand gewesen sei, sagte aber, dass es keine ausreichenden Beweise gebe, um zu beweisen, dass Frau Greene daran beteiligt gewesen sei.

Andere Klagen wurden aus Verfahrensgründen abgewiesen.

Die Strategie funktionierte im Fall von Mr. Griffin, aber seine war viel einfacher zu gewinnen als eine potenzielle Herausforderung für Mr. Trump oder einen seiner Mitarbeiter, da der Beamte aus New Mexico bei dem Aufstand am 6. Januar physisch anwesend war.

In den letzten Wochen haben einige hochkarätige Demokraten im Kongress Gesetze eingereicht, die es solchen Klagen erleichtern würden, gegen Mr. Trump und andere an den Ereignissen vom 6. Januar beteiligte Politiker erfolgreich zu sein, obwohl sie keine Chance haben, voranzukommen.

Der Abgeordnete Jamie Raskin aus Maryland, ein Mitglied des Sonderausschusses des Repräsentantenhauses, der den Angriff vom 6. Januar untersucht, und die Abgeordnete Debbie Wasserman Schultz aus Florida, eine ehemalige Vorsitzende des Democratic National Committee, haben ein Gesetz eingereicht, das den Angriff vom 6. Januar auf die USA deklarieren würde Kapitolieren Sie einen Aufstand und ermächtigen Sie den Generalstaatsanwalt, Ermittlungen durchzuführen und zivilrechtliche Schritte gegen jeden einzuleiten, der verdächtigt wird, seinen Amtseid verletzt zu haben. Der Gesetzentwurf würde auch jeden Bürger ermächtigen, eine Zivilklage einzureichen, um einen Amtsträger zu disqualifizieren.

Herr Raskin sagte, er bespreche mit anderen Mitgliedern des Ausschusses vom 6. Januar, ob die Maßnahme in die Empfehlungen des Gremiums aufgenommen werden solle – zusammen mit Überarbeitungen des Electoral Count Act und anderen möglichen Änderungen – die voraussichtlich erhebliche Aufmerksamkeit erregen werden, wenn sie veröffentlicht werden in den kommenden Wochen.

„Dies ist eine Angelegenheit von verfassungsrechtlicher Bedeutung“, sagte Herr Raskin. „Da der Ausschuss in die Endphase unserer Untersuchung und unserer Empfehlungen übergeht, hoffe ich, dass wir dies in Betracht ziehen.“

Sollte der Ausschuss den Schritt befürworten, könnte dies der Gesetzgebung mehr Schwung verleihen, um im Kongress voranzukommen, obwohl sie im Senat mit ziemlicher Sicherheit vor einer unüberwindbaren Hürde stehen würde, wo die Republikaner sie durch Filibuster verhindern könnten. Aber selbst wenn der Gesetzentwurf stirbt, betrachten seine Autoren ihn als Fahrplan für den Kongress, um die Verfassungsbestimmungen in Zukunft durchzusetzen.

Nach dem Angriff auf das Kapitol begannen Rechtswissenschaftler, das Bundesgesetzbuch zu durchsuchen, um Möglichkeiten zu finden, den Beteiligten Konsequenzen aufzuerlegen. Die Randalierer, die Gewalttaten begangen haben, erwiesen sich als leicht anzuklagen und zu verurteilen, was zu Hunderten von Fällen führte. Weniger klar war, was mit den Politikern zu tun war, deren Aktionen zu den Ausschreitungen geführt haben, die aber selbst keine Gewalt begangen haben.

Seit Ende letzten Jahres scheint der Ausschuss des Repräsentantenhauses auf eine Strategie zu setzen, so viele Beweise wie möglich gegen Herrn Trump aufzudecken, mit der Begründung, dass dies das Justizministerium unter Druck setzen würde, den ehemaligen Präsidenten strafrechtlich zu verfolgen.

Im Dezember las die Abgeordnete Liz Cheney, Republikanerin aus Wyoming und stellvertretende Vorsitzende des Komitees, laut die Strafgesetze vor, die Mr. Trump ihrer Meinung nach gebrochen hatte. Im März entschied ein Bundesrichter, dass Mr. Trump und der konservative Anwalt John Eastman, die ihm dabei halfen, eine Rechtstheorie zu entwickeln, um die Annullierung der Wahl zu rechtfertigen, wahrscheinlich rechtswidrig gehandelt haben, indem sie die Arbeit des Kongresses behinderten und sich verschworen hatten, die Vereinigten Staaten zu betrügen.

Während seiner öffentlichen Anhörungen im Juni und Juli schlug der Ausschuss eine Reihe anderer möglicher Gründe für die Verfolgung von Herrn Trump vor, darunter ein Schema, falsche Pro-Trump-Wahlmänner in Staaten vorzuschlagen, die von Joseph R. Biden Jr. gewonnen wurden, basierend auf Spendenbeschaffung auf der Lüge einer gestohlenen Wahl und Einmischung in Komitee-Zeugen.

Maggie Haberman trug zur Berichterstattung bei.

Categories
Politics

Proving Racist Intent: Democrats Face Excessive New Bar in Opposing Voting Legal guidelines

Proving Racist Intent: Democrats Face High New Bar in Opposing Voting Laws

The Supreme Court’s 6-to-3 ruling on Thursday that upheld the Arizona voting restrictions effectively raised the bar for voting lawyers for filing federal cases under the Voting Rights Act: demonstrating discriminatory intent.

This burden is causing civil rights and electoral groups to reshuffle their approach in court to challenge the series of new restrictions imposed by Republican-controlled lawmakers this year following Donald J. Trump’s electoral defeat in November. You can no longer rely on the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, to act as a backbone to prevent racially discriminatory electoral restrictions.

“We have to remember that the Supreme Court doesn’t save us – it will not protect our democracy in those moments when it is most needed, ”said Sam Spital, the head of litigation at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, on Friday.

The Supreme Court in a 2013 ruling gutted the core protections of the Voting Rights Act, and on Thursday the court further narrowed the law’s scope in combating discriminatory laws by setting tough new guidelines for demonstrating the effects of the law on colored voters thus litigation parties to overcome the much higher bar for the evidence of a specific intention to discriminate.

Mr Spital said his group must carefully weigh their next steps and “think very carefully” before bringing up new cases that, if defeated, could set harmful new precedents. The Arizona case, filed by the Democratic National Committee in 2016, was seen as a weak tool to challenge new electoral laws; even the Biden administration acknowledged that Arizona law was non-discriminatory under the electoral law. Choosing the wrong cases in the wrong jurisdictions could lead to further setbacks, said Mr. Spital and other proxies.

At the same time, according to Mr. Spital, it is imperative that the election restrictions imposed by the Republicans do not remain unchallenged.

“It will force us to work even harder in the cases we bring,” he said. “Once the rules of the game are in place, even if they’re against us, we have the resources – we have exceptional lawyers, exceptional clients, and we have the facts on our side.”

Thursday’s ruling also revealed an uncomfortable new reality for Democrats and electoral activists: Under current law, they can expect little help from the federal courts with electoral laws passed by the party that controls a state government. Republican lawmakers in Georgia, Florida, and Iowa have been aggressive to enforce electoral laws, brushing aside protests from Democrats, constituencies, and even big corporations.

The Arizona Republicans were open about the partisan nature of their efforts when the Supreme Court heard the case in March. An Arizona Republican Party attorney told judges that the restrictions were necessary because, without them, Republicans in the state would have “a competitive disadvantage compared to the Democrats.”

“It’s a lot harder to prove these things – it takes a lot more evidence,” said Travis Crum, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis who specializes in voting rights and reassignment cases. “Courts are often reluctant to label lawmakers as racist. That is why the effect standard was added in 1982. “

The High Court’s decision also increases stakes for the 2022 gubernatorial competitions in major swing states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, where Democratic governors stand ready to block measures proposed by Republican-controlled lawmakers. If a Republican won the governor’s seat in any of these states, lawmakers would have a clear way of enforcing new electoral laws.

Republicans on Friday praised the Supreme Court ruling, calling it an affirmation of the need to tackle electoral fraud – although no evidence of widespread fraud emerged in President Biden’s victory.

Justin Riemer, chief counsel for the Republican National Committee, argued that the new majority opinion Judge Samuel Alito “guides” would be welcome and would force recognition of the wider choice in a state.

“It affirmed, for example, that states have an incredibly important interest in protecting themselves from electoral fraud and in strengthening voter confidence,” said Riemer. “When the court looked at Arizona law, it found how generous the voting rules were.”

Riemer noted that Democrats would also find it harder to meet new standards to show that laws place undue burdens on voters.

“I don’t want to say that it completely excludes them from Section 2, but it will make it very difficult for them to remove laws that are really minimal, if any, onerous,” said Riemer, referring to the sections of the Voting Rights Act dealing with racially discriminatory practices.

Major rulings by the Supreme Court confirming a new restriction on the right to vote have been followed in the past by waves of new law at the state level. In 2011, 34 states introduced some form of new voter identification laws after the court upheld the Indiana Voter Identification Act in 2008.

The first immediate test of a newly encouraged legislature will take place next week in Texas, where the legislature is due to hold a special session in a second attempt by Republicans to pass an election revision bill. The first attempt failed after the Democrats staged a controversial night strike in the state legislature and temporarily halted proposals that were among the most restrictive in the country.

These proposals included bans on new voting methods, shortening Sunday elections, and provisions that would facilitate the cancellation of elections and greatly empower partisan election observers.

The uncertain litigation will be played out in a federal justice system reshaped during Mr. Trump’s tenure, and Democrats in Congress have failed to enact federal voter protection.

The Legal Defense Fund, which Mr. Spital represents, sued Georgia in May over its new voting laws, arguing that the laws had a discriminatory effect. Other lawsuits, including one filed by the Justice Department last week, argue that Georgia acted with intent to discriminate against colored voters.

However, some Democrats complained about the Supreme Court decision, but noted that they still have many constitutional tools to challenge repressive electoral laws.

“Obviously, litigation is getting harder now,” said Aneesa McMillan, deputy general manager of Super PAC Priorities USA, which oversees the organization’s voting efforts. “But most of the cases we contest we contest based on the first, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution.”

One of the guidelines that Judge Alito formulated was an assessment of the “standard practice” of voting in 1982 when Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act was amended.

“It is relevant that in 1982 the states generally obliged almost all voters to cast their ballots in person on election day, and only allowed narrow and well-defined categories of voters to cast postal ballots,” wrote Judge Alito.

The court did not address the purpose clause in Section 2. However, these cases are often based on racist statements by lawmakers or irregularities in the legislative process – elements of a legal dispute that are more difficult to prove than the effects.

“You won’t get any evidence of this smoking gun,” said Sophia Lakin, the ACLU’s deputy director of the Voting Rights Project. “Much evidence is being brought together to show that the purpose is to take away the rights of colored voters.”

In Texas, some Democrats in the Legislature had hoped they could work towards a more moderate version of the bill in the special session beginning next week; It remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court decision will lead Republicans to adopt an even more restrictive law.

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and State Representative Briscoe Cain, both Republicans, did not respond to requests for comment. Speaker Dan Phelan and State Senator Bryan Hughes, both Republicans, declined to comment.

However, whether the Supreme Court decision will open the floodgates for more restrictive electoral laws in other states remains an open question; more than 30 state legislatures adjourned for the year, and others have already passed their voting laws.

“It is hard to imagine what an increase in election restrictions would look like now because we are already seeing such a dramatic increase, more than ever since the reconstruction,” said Wendy Weiser, director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, a research institute. “But the passing of new waves of laws has certainly been the answer in recent years.”

Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers is one of the Democratic governors withholding voting actions passed by Republican-led lawmakers. On Wednesday, he vetoed the first of several Republican electoral process laws.

In an interview, he said that the Republicans’ months of efforts to revive the 2020 elections have made voting at the health and education level a top priority for voters in Wisconsin.

“People are realizing more and more that it’s an important issue,” said Evers. “Frankly, the Republicans have taken it upon themselves. I don’t think the Wisconsin people thought the election was stolen. You understand it was a fair choice. And so the Republicans’ inability to accept the loss of Donald Trump makes it more of a bread-and-butter problem here. “

Categories
Business

Florida, in a First, Will Effective Social Media Corporations That Bar Candidates

Florida, in a First, Will Fine Social Media Companies That Bar Candidates

WASHINGTON — Florida on Monday became the first state to regulate how companies like Facebook, YouTube and Twitter moderate speech online, by imposing fines on social media companies that permanently bar political candidates in the state.

The law, signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis, is a direct response to Facebook’s and Twitter’s bans of former President Donald J. Trump in January. In addition to the fines for barring candidates, it makes it illegal to prevent some news outlets from posting to their platforms in response to the contents of their stories.

Mr. DeSantis said signing the bill meant that Floridians would be “guaranteed protection against the Silicon Valley elites.”

“If Big Tech censors enforce rules inconsistently, to discriminate in favor of the dominant Silicon Valley ideology, they will now be held accountable,” he said in a statement.

The bill is part of a broader push among conservative state legislatures to crack down on the ability of tech companies to manage posts on their platforms. The political efforts took off after Mr. Trump was barred after the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. Lawmakers around the country have echoed Mr. Trump’s accusations that the companies are biased against conservative personalities and publications, even though those accounts often thrive online.

More than a hundred bills targeting the companies’ moderation practices have been filed nationwide this year, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Many of the bills have died, but a proposal is still being debated in Texas.

Twitter declined to comment. Google and Facebook did not immediately offer comments on the signing of the bill.

The Florida law makes it illegal to bar a candidate for state office for more than 14 days, in a move that would seem to outlaw the kind of permanent ban the social media platforms applied to Mr. Trump’s accounts. Companies would be fined $250,000 per day for cases where they barred a candidate for statewide office. The fine is lower for candidates seeking other offices.

The law says the platforms cannot take down or otherwise prioritize content from a “journalistic enterprise” that reaches a certain size. Conservatives were outraged last year when Facebook and Twitter limited the reach of a New York Post article about the contents of a laptop it said belonged to Hunter Biden, the younger son of President Biden.

Under the law, platforms are also required to be clear about how they decide to take down content or leave it up. Users could sue the platform if they felt those terms were inconsistently applied.

A late amendment to the bill exempts companies from the law if they own a theme park or an entertainment venue larger than 25 acres. That means the law is unlikely to apply to websites owned by Disney, which operates the Walt Disney World Resort, and Comcast, which owns Universal Studios Florida.

In Florida, as in dozens of other states, the Republican lawmakers’ push to punish social media companies follows the party’s other efforts to feed the demands of a conservative base that remains loyal to Mr. Trump.

Florida, along with Republican-run legislatures in Oklahoma and Iowa, have in recent weeks passed legislation limiting the right to protest and providing immunity to drivers who strike protesters in public streets.

And the Republican push to make voting harder continues unabated after Mr. Trump’s relentless lying about the results of the 2020 election. Gov. Brian Kemp of Georgia signed into law new restrictions on voting, as did Mr. DeSantis in Florida, and Texas Republicans are poised to soon pass the nation’s biggest rollback of voting rights.

The partywide, nationwide push stems from Mr. Trump’s repeated grievances. During his failed re-election campaign, Mr. Trump repeatedly pushed to repeal Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which provides immunity to certain tech firms from liability for user-generated content, even as he used their platforms to spread misinformation. Twitter and Facebook eventually barred Mr. Trump after he inspired his supporters, using their platforms, to attack the Capitol on Jan. 6.

Republican lawmakers in Florida have echoed Mr. Trump’s statements.

“I have had numerous constituents come to me saying that they were banned or de-platformed on social media sites,” Representative Blaise Ingoglia said during the debate over the bill.

But Democrats, libertarian groups and tech companies all say the law violates the tech companies’ First Amendment rights to decide how to handle content on their own platforms. It also may prove impossible to bring complaints under the law because of Section 230, the legal protections for web platforms that Mr. Trump has attacked.

“It is the government telling private entities how to speak,” said Carl Szabo, the vice president at NetChoice, a trade association that includes Facebook, Google and Twitter as members. “In general, it’s a gross misreading of the First Amendment.” He said the First Amendment was designed to protect sites like Reddit from government intervention, not protect “politicians from Reddit.”

The Florida measure is likely to be challenged in court, said Jeff Kosseff, a professor of cybersecurity law at the Naval Academy.

“I think this is the beginning of testing judges’ limits on these sorts of restrictions for social media,” he said.

Categories
Health

New York to finish restaurant curfew, permit bar seating in NYC beginning Could

New York to end restaurant curfew, allow bar seating in NYC starting May

People walk through local restaurants during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic in New York City on March 11, 2021.

Eduardo Munoz | Reuters

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announced Wednesday that the state would lift the curfew on restaurants across the state and ban on bar seating in New York City. This is a major milestone in restoring a pandemic lockdown industry.

Sitting in bars will be allowed in New York City starting May 3, more than a year after restrictions were first introduced at the height of the coronavirus pandemic.

New York City, once considered the country’s pandemic hotspot, has been hit hard by shutdowns. Due to severe bar and restaurant restrictions that began in March last year, the city suffered from widespread unemployment. According to the New York Comptroller, more than 1,200 restaurants closed their doors forever by July 2020.

The governor also announced that other curfews on food and beverage services in the state will also end. The outdoor dining curfew at 12 noon will end on May 17, and indoor dining curfews will expire on May 31st.

Curfews for all events with meals will be lifted on May 31, and curfews for events with meals where participants can prove a vaccination status or a recently negative Covid test result will be lifted by May 17.

Catering events in dormitories can also be resumed above the state meeting limit of 10 people indoors and 25 people outdoors from May 3, provided the events are manned by a licensed caterer and, according to a press release, strictly adhere to health and safety standards Security guidelines keep out of the governor’s office.

The announcements come as Covid numbers continue to decline in New York State and New York City. The rate of positivity is just over 2% nationwide and just over 6% in the city. The vaccination campaign is also making headway: 44% of New York State residents have received at least one dose of a Covid vaccine.

“We know the COVID positivity rate is a function of our behavior, and for the past year New Yorkers have remained disciplined and continued practices we know to try to stop the virus from spreading,” Cuomo said. “By lifting these restrictions on restaurants, bars and catering businesses, these pandemic-ravaged businesses can recover as we return to a new normal in a post-pandemic world.”

The governor also announced that the capacity of gyms and fitness centers outside of New York City will increase from 33% to 50%, the capacity of casinos and gaming facilities from 25% to 50%, and the capacity of offices from 50% to 75% .

“To be clear, we will only be able to sustain this progress if everyone gets the Covid vaccine,” said Cuomo.

Categories
Health

Native bar opening in rural Illinois was tied to no less than 46 new Covid circumstances, CDC says

Local bar opening in rural Illinois was tied to at least 46 new Covid cases, CDC says

Residents line up for COVID-19 testing at Pritzker College Prep High School in the Hermosa neighborhood on November 30, 2020 in Chicago, Illinois.

Scott Olson | Getty Images News | Getty Images

A local bar that opened in a rural Illinois county in early February was linked to at least 46 new cases of coronavirus and a school closure that affected 650 children, according to a study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The county’s per capita number doubled due to the cash opening, according to the CDC. Before the event, the district had an average of up to 42 cases per 100,000 inhabitants for seven days. The daily case average more than doubled 14 days after it opened, the CDC said.

The case, highlighted in a research report released Monday, provides further evidence of how weddings and gatherings in restaurants and nightclubs have the potential to become widespread events for Covid-19.

After routine case examinations, local health officials identified a group of cases linked to a handful of people at the bar opening, including a participant who had been diagnosed with asymptomatic Covid-19 the day before and who was still walking. There were also four people there that night who had symptoms and who later tested positive for the virus.

“These results show that opening settings such as bars where masking and physical distancing are challenging can increase the risk for community transmission,” the CDC said.

One bar attendee who later tested positive identified 26 close contacts he had while attending school for indoor exercise or personal lessons. Two student athletes also tested positive, causing local officials to shut down the school district after more than a dozen employees were potentially exposed.

Another bar attendee was working at a long-term care facility where an employee and two residents were rated positive days after the event. At least one resident was hospitalized before being released the same day. Nobody was vaccinated.

As of February 26, 12 people in eight different homes who were in contact with people who were at the bar that night tested positive for Covid-19, including five school-age children, according to the study. No one was admitted to the hospital.

“This research further shows that inconsistent mask usage and inadequate physical distancing indoors can increase the risk of transmission,” the CDC wrote. “”[Covid-19] The broadcast that originates from a company like a bar affects not only the customers and employees of the bar, but can also affect an entire community. “

The CDC said there were at least four caveats to the results. First, the interviews were voluntary and many community members did not provide full information, so the number of cases reported in the study is likely to be fewer than the actual number of cases.

It was also likely that not all asymptomatic cases were counted and not all contacts were tested. Information on individual behaviors such as wearing masks and social distancing was not collected from those with positive results. Finally, no samples were available for sequencing the entire genome, which is why it could not be determined whether variant Covid strains were responsible for the increase in transmission.

According to the CDC, a multi-component approach such as enforcing the correct wearing of masks, social distancing, reducing indoor capacity, adequate ventilation and contact tracing should be implemented to prevent the virus from spreading before settings such as bars and restaurants are opened.

Categories
Entertainment

Did Kim Kardashian Move the Child Bar Examination?

WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 13: Kim Kardashian West speaks during an East Room event on

The final season of Keeping up with the Kardashians Officially premiered on Thursday, the question everyone is talking about is, did Kim Kardashian pass the baby bar exam? During the show’s season 20 premiere, Kim is shown taking the Baby Bar exam – a compulsory exam also known as the first-year law student exam and the first-year law student attending non-accredited schools , must pass in order to be eligible for the bar – although it is never actually revealed whether or not it passed.

Judging from Kim’s recent tweets, it appears to have passed. During the episode, Kim tweeted live and in one of the tweets she wrote, “I spend so many hours studying, but it’s definitely worth it.”

I spend so many hours studying, but it’s definitely worth it ✨📚 https://t.co/AwRLrSft8n

– Kim Kardashian West (@KimKardashian) March 19, 2021

In a separate tweet, another fan asked if her baby bar experience would be highlighted on her upcoming Spotify podcast series, to which she replied, “It’s going to be the best! I can’t wait for you guys to tune in.”

It will be the best! I can’t wait for you to tune in https://t.co/AcPyiPG6Ho

– Kim Kardashian West (@KimKardashian) March 19, 2021

Kim first announced her decision to become a lawyer in April 2019 and is slated to take the bar exam in 2022. She is completing a four-year apprenticeship with a law firm in San Francisco, and while not yet officially a lawyer, she has been an advocate for a number of reasons of criminal justice reform in recent years. Given that KUWTK I’ll follow Kim’s journey to law school, we’ll probably find out soon enough if she passed.