Video footage appeared to show the star speaking with police

Rock and Roll is all about groove. It starts with the drums and bass. If your band has a weak drummer or bass player, it’s all over. Ask any brilliant soloist where it all comes from; they will point to the rhythm section. There are thousands of fantastic bass players in rock history who know how to create a killer groove. It is not about complexity or even simplicity; it is about feel. It doesn’t matter what music style one plays; when a bass player has a groove, you just know it. Groove can’t be written out on paper. It The post 10 Bass Players That Put The G In Groove appeared first on ClassicRockHistory.com.

News Fantastic Four Kevin Feige Confirms That The Fantastic Four Is Set in the Past At least someone is probably having fun with the retro design By Molly Templeton | Published on June 26, 2024 Image: HBO Comment 0 Share New Share Image: HBO Yes, the retro-styled cast announcement was a clue. And so was the poster of Johnny Storm making a big red fiery 4 in the sky—the sky over an unrecognizable city. On the Official Marvel Podcast, Marvel Studios head Kevin Feige made it essentially official that The Fantastic Four is set both in the 1960s—and he hinted that observations about the peculiar city in that poster maybe suggest the movie is set in an alternate universe to the main MCU timeline. “There was a cityscape in the corner of that image,” Feige said (per Polygon), “and there were a lot of smart people who noticed that that cityscape didn’t look exactly like the New York that we know, or the New York that existed in the ’60s in our world. Those are some smart, smart observations.” So … yeah, okay, I got nothing. Presumably by the end of the film they will wind up making contact with the main timeline, or the TVA gets involved, or honestly at this point there are so many universes and timelines that it’s hard to say what this confirmation really means, if much at all? But there you have it. The Fantastic Four, whatever else it does or doesn’t have going for it (third time’s the charm?), has a very of-the-moment cast: The Last of Us’ Pedro Pascal (pictured above) as Reed Richards; Mission: Impossible’s Vanessa Kirby as Sue Storm; The Bear’s Ebon Moss-Bachrach as Ben Grimm, and Stranger Things’ Joseph Quinn as Johnny Storm—with Ozark’s Julia Garner and Russian Doll’s Natasha Lyonne showing up for the fun too. WandaVision’s Matt Shakman directs the film, which is in theaters July 25, 2025.[end-mark] The post Kevin Feige Confirms That <i>The Fantastic Four</i> Is Set in the Past appeared first on Reactor.

Movies & TV Interview with the Vampire Interview With the Vampire Asks: Can the “Real” Story Ever Be Known? The new adaptation is a palimpsest of narratives, a conversation between drafts of the story and between the differing recollections of its characters. By Tenacity Plys | Published on June 26, 2024 Credit: AMC Comment 0 Share New Share Credit: AMC “No vampire must commit to writing the history of the vampires.” This is presented by one vampire coven as the third vampiric law in Rolin Jones’ TV adaptation of Interview with the Vampire, but in the books it’s the fifth. In a later season, another character might present the law differently; depending which vampire you ask, details can get very slippery. That’s what makes Interview fascinating, the tug of war between its characters for control of the narrative. Maybe that’s why there’s a law against vampires writing down their history? Interview hasn’t just taken liberties with its source material, it takes a red pen to the book mercilessly, rewriting it almost completely—if there were laws for how to adapt the original, this show would surely have broken a few. But we’re not just throwing away the book; the earlier versions of this narrative are crucial to understanding its current iteration. Interview is a palimpsest of narratives, a conversation between drafts of the story and between the differing recollections of its characters. The viewer is left to make what they can of the contested text. For those who don’t know, the original novel happens over the course of one night, when the vampire Louis de Pointe du Lac tells his life story to journalist Daniel Molloy, who he chose for unknown reasons (in the books). In Jones’ show, Daniel goes on to become a successful author, but never writes about Louis. The show’s action begins when, fifty years later, Louis contacts him again and offers to tell him the “real” story, so Daniel can finally write the authoritative account of Louis’s life. As Hegel puts it, “the return to the book is also the abandoning of the book.” As you re-read, you destroy your previous interpretations of a book in your search for meaning in the present. Much of the second interview is spent on disputes about what Louis said on the original tapes, which acts almost too literally as a stand-in for Anne Rice’s book. Louis said he is over 200 years old in the original interview; now he’s 100 years younger. Louis was originally the owner of a plantation in the South, now he’s a Black brothel owner. And of course, Louis is never consistent in his depiction of Lestat, his lover and the man who turned him into a vampire. Daniel’s questions are often the viewer’s: why is the show giving us this story about Louis now? What are we meant to think of the original? According to Jacques Derrida, the “inventor” of deconstructive analysis, one can never truly know what an author “really” meant in their text. The text is the part of an artwork that can be experienced; the rest is interpretation by the viewer, which is an attempt at reconstructing that “real” aspect which can never be accessed. What Anne Rice “really” intended, what Louis “really” meant in the first interview, even what “really” happened when you and your last lover broke up—it’s lost to us forever. All we have is a palimpsest of our previous interpretations, never touching reality. What I mean is, Interview is making a faithful adaptation of the book by returning to/ abandoning the book. It allows for the show’s queerness, its racial inclusivity, and all the other details that make it so squarely a work of its own, separate from the original. This show is talking about trauma, abuse, love, and grief in ways that not only go further than the books but actually comment on its source material. Daniel sardonically notes the warning signs of abuse as Louis tells the story of his relationship with Lestat, and brings up plot holes from Rice’s book as throwaway jokes. as throwaway jokes. Readers of the books were probably aware their relationship was less than healthy, but they might not have thought that hard about it amid the other horrors in the story. Credit: AMC The themes of trauma and abuse are all the more palpable given that Louis and Daniel are unreliable narrators for themselves—Interview is more of a mind-fuck than a Christopher Nolan film (or like, his early work, anyway). The show’s second season has been promoted with the tagline “memory is a monster.” Memory is Louis’s biggest cop-out in the show, and one of the most crucial plot points: both Louis and Daniel can’t fully remember what happened that night when they first met. Maybe the interview can help them figure it out? The original doesn’t help; it ends where their memories do. It’s revealed that Louis has memory gaps across his entire lifespan, and certain events have been wallpapered over in his mind with false narratives—the parts of the book that the show wanted to change. But this isn’t just the soap opera’s plot device of convenience: Louis has repressed some of his memories himself, but some have been erased or edited by his new vampire lover Armand. At this time Armand’s motivations may not be fully revealed, but he obviously doesn’t want Louis or Daniel to know that he tortured Daniel in front of Louis for days following the original interview—this is why neither of them remembers how the interview ended. (Okay, it is kind of a soap opera.) The original Interview book also plays with Louis’ reliability as a narrator, mostly in making the reader wonder if Louis is lying to Daniel or to himself, whether he has motivations beyond his own sentimentality. Louis still at times seems to be hiding details from Daniel, but Daniel also helps him recover crucial memories of Claudia, a younger vampire he sees as a little sister. In both book and show, Louis appears to have repressed memories of Claudia because they were too painful, possibly because of the end of her story, which has only been hinted at in the show and which may or may not be the same as the books. This interplay of influences on Louis’s memory creates the stakes of the show. Neurology tells us that memory literally is a palimpsest, even for those of us who haven’t had vampires meddle with our minds. Every time we remember something, we rewrite the memory in our minds—rewrite as in over-writing, reconstructing the memory anew. Louis does this in a very literal way, but it’s true in a mundane sense as well. The most key moments of our lives come to us through a glass darkly, warped by more recent events that preface our recollection. In a way, Louis only ever interacts with the interpretation of Lestat in his head, the way he does while daydreaming in certain scenes of the second season—and it’s the same for all of us. Credit: AMC “The moment you met her. All these years, drunk on the memory of its perfection. How shiny her lips. How instant your connection.” Jared Leto’s character in Blade Runner 2049 puts it thus to Harrison Ford, implying the love of his life was orchestrated for a larger purpose. Many sequels or reboots build on the original work, but Blade Runner undertakes the same re-contextualization, with the fabrication of memories being a foregrounded theme. None of us knows what really happened in our relationships, our lives—we just know what we remember, and what we remember is a text we are constantly rewriting, our brains reinterpreting the text to create a new text that we think is reality. There’s a grief in that; grief for the immediacy you will never have again, the person you can now only reconstruct from the text of memory. “I can’t imagine you with all your complexity, all your perfection, all your imperfection,” says the main character of Inception to the dream version of his wife. “You’re the best I can do. But I’m sorry, you’re just not good enough.” At the end of our lives, when we retell our stories (either to someone else or to ourselves), all we’re left with is the ghosts in our memory. Is that what it means for memory to be a monster? Louis is obviously able to reconstruct a very convincing Lestat to converse with, but we, the viewers of the show, have literally never had a way to corroborate his story. Maybe the other characters can shed some light on this, an external check to Louis’ fabrications. But beware: their viewpoints must be interpreted as well. Rice wrote one of the books from Lestat’s point of view, and other vampires get their own books too; it gives the impression of a set of primary sources the reader has to sift through. In the show Claudia’s diary is a primary source, which Daniel uses to fact-check Louis’ claims. When Daniel finds a chapter’s worth of pages ripped out of the diary, it is a mystery (for a time) who took those pages out—Claudia, Lestat, Armand, or Louis. But where in these sources is the truth? What are we looking for when we say that word? When Armand joins the interview, a new and contentious POV enters the chat. At first, Armand pretended to be Louis’ servant Rashid; he is replaced in that capacity by “real Rashid” in Season 2. Armand (played by Assad Zaman, a heartthrob if I ever saw one) at first wants to be off the record, with Daniel striking his words from the palimpsest-text as soon as he speaks them. When Armand agrees to be part of the record, he and Louis often speak at the same time, their words blending into each other; it feels like an old married couple telling you how they met, but their intimacy has an antagonistic undercurrent to it. Louis finds out things about Armand during these interviews that he didn’t know for the seventy years they’ve been together. How disorienting that must be. Derrida goes so far as to describe people as texts. As in, the tangible parts of a person allow you to form an interpretation of them, but their internal states aren’t accessible to you. Sometimes the person you interpreted as Rashid is really Armand, and the Louis you met has lived a drastically different life than he described to you, to both his and your surprise. This is what it’s like to have a relationship with someone, even when they’re right in front of you: like in Gone Girl, another canny film adaptation, you find yourself asking, “What are you thinking? How are you feeling? What have we done to each other?” Nick describes wanting to crack his wife’s lovely head to get answers, but none of us get to do that. Is there grief to be felt for people still in our lives? For our own selves, as we once understood them? Credit: AMC Interview is a story about text in this broader sense, with the stakes being the characters’ relationships as well as the larger text of the show. The characters, the writers, and past versions of the story vye for control of the text, but is there a definitive version of the text? How would we know if we found/created it? Maybe this is what’s at issue with every adaptation. Will the new narrative be faithful to its original, or like Louis with Lestat, will it kill its maker and leave it in a garbage dump? And when will the revisions end? Is Interview a project of “permanent revolution,” constantly re-writing both its past and its present? “Diaries are companions of last resort. I have found one not made of paper and glue,” writes Claudia in her last diary entry. Now that she’s found a lover, she is bored of breaking the third vampiric law. Will Louis be able to lay his story to rest at some point, to continue his relationship with Armand with his past at peace? How long will he reinterpret events? Harrison Ford defies Jared Leto; laconically, he mutters, “I know what’s real.” In Inception, Cobb eventually abandons the spinning top that might tell him whether he’s returned to his real family or another dream. For Daniel and Louis, and also for Interview, just deciding what’s true might not be the answer. I can’t pretend to know how even this season of Interview will end, let alone the show as a whole (it’s just been renewed for a third season!), but it will be interesting to see how this textual approach might potentially stretch past Louis’ interview. I hope for Claudia to “escape the narrative” as they say, and for Lestat to stop haunting it—and when I say “the narrative” I mean Louis’ mind as much as the show. Interview‘s grapplings with truth and identity will need to come to some result before it can end. But maybe the grappling is the point of a relationship—the show’s relationship with its source material and our relationship with the show. Once something has ended, we’re left to re-interpret it forever. I can be satisfied with that, but I am thankful to puzzle out Interview’s mysteries for a little longer before it becomes part of the past.[end-mark] The post <i>Interview With the Vampire</i> Asks: Can the “Real” Story Ever Be Known? appeared first on Reactor.

As time goes on, culture changes as new technologies arise and new technologies are made to adapt to changes in culture. Whether people try to resist it or not, that change is constant because nothing in the world truly stands still. But when enough of those changes happen, what once existed can seem almost alien. But while younger generations may adopt styles and cultural artifacts from the past... Source

President Joe Biden—who recently invoked commitments to a global governance organization as justification to foist abortion and the LGBTQ agenda on the developing world—has done “more damage to Christianity than anyone but the Devil,” a critic of the new policy tells The Washington Stand. The Biden administration has often promoted abortion and the LGBTQ agenda by citing international commitments to provide “sexual and reproductive health,” although no international treaty covers either concept. Biden recently took yet another step toward redefining that term this month, promoting abortion, the LGBTQ community, and taxpayer-funded contraception as he marked the 30th anniversary of a controversial United Nations conference on population. Biden celebrated the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo by announcing two new taxpayer-funded, “equity”-focused programs to expand the sexual revolution at home and abroad. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) “commits to supporting family-planning progress in West Africa through an expected $86.5 million [in grants]” which the administration says is a $15.5 million increase over last year. At home, the Biden administration unveiled the Accelerating Choice, Equity, and Sustainability for Services (“ACCESS”) program, providing $1.2 million to address “persistent barriers to access, equity, and quality of family planning and reproductive health care, particularly with and for adolescents and youth, persons with disabilities, indigenous persons, migrants, and members of other underserved and underrepresented groups, such as LGBTQI+ persons.” Many members of these groups share “intersecting identities,” note numerous grant announcements for the ACCESS program. “The Biden administration poses a serious threat to Christian values everywhere,” Brian Clowes, director of education and research at Human Life International, told The Washington Stand. “This is not just a matter of opinion; it is plain to see.” Biden knows that the culture of death cannot triumph without destroying its greatest resistance, which consists of faith and family. So, he aggressively promotes everything that would weaken and corrupt both of these institutions—population-suppression programs, coercion to reduce family size, abortion, homosexuality, and transgenderism among others. The statement attempts to slip abortion under the cover of international agreements in the statement on Biden’s “commitment to Implementing the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) Consensus.” The document attempts to demonstrate how “President Biden and Vice President Harris have resolutely supported sexual and reproductive health and rights” by citing the 2021 Presidential Memorandum on Protecting Women’s Health at Home and Abroad—the executive order that reversed the Mexico City policy that protects U.S. taxpayers from paying for abortion promotion overseas. The ICPD document produced in Cairo specifically states, “Governments should take appropriate steps to help women avoid abortion, which in no case should be promoted as a method of family planning.” Although “a number of nations specifically attached statements making it clear that abortion was not covered by this term,” since Cairo, the term “has somehow morphed to include abortion,” said a Family Research Council report on the topic.  A tangled triumvirate of Democratic officials, global bureaucrats, and abortion lobbyists have worked together to ignore the global consensus that sexual and reproductive health consciously excludes abortion. “Political leaders at all levels must champion sexual health as part of sexual and reproductive health to counteract conservative opposition,” instructed a bulletin from World Health Organization Director-General Dr. Tedros Ghebreyesus on “Advancing the ‘sexual’ in sexual and reproductive health and rights” released on New Year’s Day. “Policymakers must enact progressive laws and … repeal laws that criminalize homosexuality, sex work, and HIV transmission.” Enacting these policies, all of which the Bible condemns as immoral, “is a moral obligation,” wrote Ghebreyesus. Last month, WHO released an 83-page report on adolescent health, “Working for a Brighter, Healthier Future,” praising those who helped “meet the sexual and reproductive health (SRH) needs of adolescents during the COVID-19 crisis” by carrying out abortions. Yet another WHO document, from 2021, stated that governments should have “a legal presumption that adolescents are competent to seek and have access to … sexual and reproductive health commodities and services” without “third-party” parental consent or notification. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals commit all signatories to “ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health-care services, including for family planning” by 2030. At the Group of Seven summit two weeks ago, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni thwarted the Biden administration’s attempt to include abortion in the group’s statement. Last year’s statement declared, “We reaffirm our full commitment to achieving comprehensive SRHR [Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights] for all, including by addressing access to safe and legal abortion and post-abortion care.” “We are committed to supporting sexual and reproductive health services,” said the latest Biden administration announcement, posted on June 14. “Advancing and protecting sexual and reproductive health and rights is fundamental to achieving gender equity and equality and promoting the human rights of women, girls, and LGBTQI+ persons, particularly those who face multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination.” The Biden administration has aggressively pushed these concepts—which some have called a form of cultural colonialism—“even in regions where these practices are offensive to the population,” Clowes said. The new foreign grant will target members of the Ouagadougou Partnership, a region comprising nine French-speaking West African nations: Benin, Burkina Faso, Cote d’Ivoire (Ivory Coast), Guinea, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Senegal, and Togo. The entire region adheres to traditional morality based on the strong religious influences dominating the region. Benin is 52% Christian, and 26% of its citizens are Roman Catholic. Togo is 42% Christian (25% Catholic). Cote d’Ivoire is 39% Christian (17% Catholic). Burkina Faso is predominantly Muslim, albeit with a meaningful Christian minority (26% of the population; 20% of citizens are Catholic). Guinea has a large Muslim majority with 8% of the population embracing Christianity. Mali, Mauritania, Niger, and Senegal are overwhelmingly Muslim. Roman Catholicism categorically teaches that both contraception and abortion violate divine law and constitute mortal sins. Islam has a nuanced position on abortion and contraception. “Perhaps the worst aspects of all of this is that, while he causes more damage to Christianity than anyone but the Devil, Biden pretends to be a good Christian by making other Christians pay for his repulsive programs through their taxes,” Clowes told the Washington Stand. The Biden administration boasts of its leading role in promoting these practices in the name of sexual and reproductive health, highlighting, “The United States remains the largest bilateral donor to global family planning.” In the 2023 fiscal year, the Biden administration spent $607.5 million in taxpayer funding on global “family planning and reproductive health programs,” including $32.5 million on the controversial United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), which was long complicit in China’s one-child policy. International “family planning” programs, which date back to the Nixon administration, have become so ingrained that the abortion industry cashes in on them during pro-abortion and pro-life administrations alike. Even in the pro-life Trump administration, International Planned Parenthood Foundation (IPPF) and Marie Stopes International (MSI Reproductive Choices) received $3.38 million from USAID between 2019 and 2021, according to a Government Accountability Office report requested by Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and other pro-life members of Congress. The June 14 family planning statement also boasts of the Biden administration’s efforts to “help end female genital mutilation.” At the same time, the Biden administration has sued states attempting to protect underage girls from transgender “bottom surgery.” Originally published by The Washington Stand. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Biden’s ‘Sexual Health’ Funding ‘Poses Serious Threat to Christian Values Everywhere,’ Expert Warns appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The US Supreme Court has ruled in the hotly-awaited decision for the Murthy v. Missouri case, reinforcing the government’s ability to engage with social media companies concerning the removal of speech about COVID-19 and more. This decision, affirming that these actions do not infringe upon First Amendment rights, delineates the limits of free speech on the internet, dealing a massive blow to freedom of expression online and the interpretation that the First Amendment prevents the government from pressuring platforms to remove legal speech. The verdict, decided by a 6-3 vote, found that the plaintiffs lacked the standing to sue the Biden administration. The dissenting opinions came from conservative justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch. We obtained a copy of the ruling for you here. John Vecchione, Senior Litigation Counsel at NCLA, responded to the ruling, telling Reclaim The Net, “The majority of the Supreme Court has declared open season on Americans’ free speech rights on the internet,” referring to the decision as an “ukase” that permits the federal government to influence third-party platforms to silence dissenting voices. Vecchione accused the Court of ignoring evidence and abdicating its responsibility to hold the government accountable for its actions that crush free speech. “The Government can press third parties to silence you, but the Supreme Court will not find you have standing to complain about it absent them referring to you by name apparently. This is a bad day for the First Amendment,” he added. Jenin Younes, another Litigation Counsel at NCLA, echoed Vecchione’s sentiments, labeling the decision a “travesty for the First Amendment” and a setback for the pursuit of scientific knowledge. “The Court has green-lighted the government’s unprecedented censorship regime,” Younes commented, reflecting concerns that the ruling might stifle expert voices on crucial public health and policy issues. Further expressing the gravity of the situation, Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya, a client of NCLA and a professor at Stanford University, criticized the Biden Administration’s regulatory actions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Dr. Bhattacharya argued that these actions led to “irrational policies” and noted, “Free speech is essential to science, to public health, and to good health.” He called for congressional action and a public movement to restore and protect free speech rights in America. This ruling comes as a setback to efforts supported by many who argue that the administration, together with federal agencies, is pushing social media platforms to suppress voices by labeling their content as misinformation. Previously, a judge in Louisiana had criticized the federal agencies for acting like an Orwellian “Ministry of Truth.” However, during the Supreme Court’s oral arguments, it was argued by the government that their requests for social media platforms to address “misinformation” more rigorously did not constitute threats or imply any legal repercussions – despite the looming threat of antitrust action against Big Tech. Here are the key points and specific quotes from the decision: Lack of Article III Standing: The Supreme Court held that neither the individual nor the state plaintiffs established the necessary standing to seek an injunction against government defendants. The decision emphasizes the fundamental requirement of a “case or controversy” under Article III, which necessitates that plaintiffs demonstrate an injury that is “concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; fairly traceable to the challenged action; and redressable by a favorable ruling” (Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U. S. 398, 409). Inadequate Traceability and Future Harm: The plaintiffs failed to convincingly link past social media restrictions and government communications with the platforms. The decision critiques the Fifth Circuit’s approach, noting that the evidence did not conclusively show that government actions directly caused the platforms’ moderation decisions. The Court pointed out: “Because standing is not dispensed in gross, plaintiffs must demonstrate standing for each claim they press” against each defendant, “and for each form of relief they seek” (TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U. S. 413, 431).The complexity arises because the platforms had “independent incentives to moderate content and often exercised their own judgment.” Absence of Direct Causation: The Court noted that the platforms began suppressing COVID-19 content before the defendants’ challenged communications began, indicating a lack of direct government coercion: “Complicating the plaintiffs’ effort to demonstrate that each platform acted due to Government coercion, rather than its own judgment, is the fact that the platforms began to suppress the plaintiffs’ COVID–19 content before the defendants’ challenged communications started.” Redressability and Ongoing Harm: The plaintiffs argued they suffered from ongoing censorship, but the Court found this unpersuasive. The platforms continued their moderation practices even as government communication subsided, suggesting that future government actions were unlikely to alter these practices: “Without evidence of continued pressure from the defendants, the platforms remain free to enforce, or not to enforce, their policies—even those tainted by initial governmental coercion.” “Right to Listen” Theory Rejected: The Court rejected the plaintiffs’ “right to listen” argument, stating that the First Amendment interest in receiving information does not automatically confer standing to challenge someone else’s censorship: “While the Court has recognized a ‘First Amendment right to receive information and ideas,’ the Court has identified a cognizable injury only where the listener has a concrete, specific connection to the speaker.” Justice Alito’s dissent argues that the First Amendment was violated by the actions of federal officials. He contends that these officials coerced social media platforms, like Facebook, to suppress certain viewpoints about COVID-19, which constituted unconstitutional censorship. Alito emphasizes that the government cannot use coercion to suppress speech and points out that this violates the core principles of the First Amendment, which is meant to protect free speech, especially speech that is essential to democratic self-government and public discourse on significant issues like public health. Here are the key points of Justice Alito’s stance: Extensive Government Coercion: Alito describes a “far-reaching and widespread censorship campaign” by high-ranking officials, which he sees as a serious threat to free speech, asserting that these actions went beyond mere suggestion or influence into the realm of coercion. He states, “This is one of the most important free speech cases to reach this Court in years.” Impact on Plaintiffs: The dissent underscores that this government coercion affected various plaintiffs, including public health officials from states, medical professors, and others who wished to share views divergent from mainstream COVID-19 narratives. Alito notes, “Victims of the campaign perceived by the lower courts brought this action to ensure that the Government did not continue to coerce social media platforms to suppress speech.” Legal Analysis: Alito criticizes the majority’s dismissal based on standing, arguing that the plaintiffs demonstrated both past and ongoing injuries caused by the government’s actions, which were likely to continue without court intervention. He argues, “These past and threatened future injuries were caused by and traceable to censorship that the officials coerced.” Evidence of Coercion: The dissent points out specific instances where government officials pressured Facebook, suggesting significant consequences if the platform failed to comply with their demands to control misinformation. This included threats related to antitrust actions and other regulatory measures. Alito highlights, “Not surprisingly, these efforts bore fruit. Facebook adopted new rules that better conformed to the officials’ wishes.” Potential for Future Abuse: Alito warns of the dangerous precedent set by the Court’s refusal to address these issues, suggesting that it could empower future government officials to manipulate public discourse covertly. He cautions, “The Court, however, shirks that duty and thus permits the successful campaign of coercion in this case to stand as an attractive model for future officials who want to control what the people say, hear, and think.” Importance of Free Speech: He emphasizes the critical role of free speech in a democratic society, particularly for speech about public health and safety during the pandemic, and criticizes the government’s efforts to suppress such speech through third parties like social media platforms. Alito asserts, “Freedom of speech serves many valuable purposes, but its most important role is protection of speech that is essential to democratic self-government.” The case revolved around allegations that the federal government, led by figures such as Dr. Vivek Murthy, the US Surgeon General, (though also lots more Biden administration officials) colluded with major technology companies to suppress speech on social media platforms. The plaintiffs argue that this collaboration targeted content labeled as “misinformation,” particularly concerning COVID-19 and political matters, effectively silencing dissenting voices. The plaintiffs claim that this coordination represents a direct violation of their First Amendment rights. They argue that while private companies can set their own content policies, government pressure that leads to the suppression of lawful speech constitutes unconstitutional censorship by proxy. The government’s campaign against what it called “misinformation,” particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic – regardless of whether online statements turned out to be true or not – has been extensive. However, Murthy v. Missouri exposed a darker side to these initiatives—where government officials allegedly overstepped their bounds by coercing tech companies to silence specific narratives. Communications presented in court, including emails and meeting records, suggest a troubling pattern: government officials not only requested but demanded that tech companies remove or restrict certain content. The tone and content of these communications often implied serious consequences for non-compliance, raising questions about the extent to which these actions were voluntary versus compelled. Tech companies like Facebook, Twitter, and Google have become the de facto public squares of the modern era, wielding immense power over what information is accessible to the public. Their content moderation policies, while designed to combat harmful content, have also been criticized for their lack of transparency and potential biases. In this case, plaintiffs argued that these companies, under significant government pressure, went beyond their standard moderation practices. They allegedly engaged in the removal, suppression, and demotion of content that, although controversial, was not illegal. This raises a critical issue: the thin line between moderation and censorship, especially when influenced by government directives. The Supreme Court ruling holds significant implications for the relationship between government actions and private social media platforms, as well as for the legal frameworks that govern free speech and content moderation. Here are some of the broader impacts this ruling may have: Clarification on Government Influence and Private Action: This decision clearly delineates the limits of government involvement in the content moderation practices of private social media platforms. It underscores that mere governmental encouragement or indirect pressure does not transform private content moderation into state action. This ruling could make it more challenging for future plaintiffs to claim that content moderation decisions, influenced indirectly by government suggestions or pressures, are tantamount to governmental censorship. Stricter Standards for Proving Standing: The Supreme Court’s emphasis on the necessity of concrete and particularized injuries directly traceable to the challenged government action sets a high bar for future litigants. Plaintiffs must now provide clear evidence that directly links government actions to the moderation practices that allegedly infringe on their speech rights. This could lead to fewer successful challenges against perceived government-induced censorship on digital platforms. Impact on Content Moderation Policies: Social media platforms may feel more secure in enforcing their content moderation policies without fear of being seen as conduits for state action, as long as their decisions can be justified as independent from direct government coercion. This could lead to more assertive actions by platforms in moderating content deemed harmful or misleading, especially in critical areas like public health and election integrity. Influence on Public Discourse: By affirming the autonomy of social media platforms in content moderation, the ruling potentially influences the nature of public discourse on these platforms. While platforms may continue to engage with government entities on issues like misinformation, they might do so with greater caution and transparency to avoid allegations of government coercion. Future Legal Challenges and Policy Discussions: The ruling could prompt legislative responses, as policymakers may seek to address perceived gaps between government interests in combating misinformation and the protection of free speech on digital platforms. This may lead to new laws or regulations that more explicitly define the boundaries of acceptable government interaction with private companies in managing online content. Broader Implications for Digital Rights and Privacy: The decision might also influence how digital rights and privacy are perceived and protected, particularly regarding how data from social media platforms is used or shared with government entities. This could lead to heightened scrutiny and potentially stricter guidelines to protect user data from being used in ways that could impinge on personal freedoms. Overall, the Murthy v. Missouri ruling will likely serve as a critical reference point in ongoing debates about the government’s ability to influence and shut down speech. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Supreme Court Sides With Biden Administration Over Accusations of Social Media Censorship Pressure appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

SCOTUS Puntalooza: Court Rejects Challenge to Government-Directed Censorship

Stop Pretending Trump Could Lose Florida

Low-cost miniature greenhouses could save one of Australia’s most beloved frogs from extinction, and the technique may prove applicable to many of the hundreds of other species under threat from an introduced fungus.Of all the major classes of the tree of life, amphibians may be the most threatened, with many species already gone and thousands more teetering on the brink. In addition to threats like climate change and habitat destruction that endanger many organisms, frogs are being devastated by the spread of a chytrid fungus, Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis. Of unknown origins, the fungus has invaded most continents and is wiping out animals that lack resistance. In Australia alone, six species are known to be lost forever as a result, and hundreds of others are threatened to various degrees.Techniques have been developed to treat infected individuals, and these even seem to provide protection on release back into the wild. However, when your strategy relies on capturing thousands of individuals and applying weeks of loving care before re-release, you’re going to struggle to save more than a handful of species. Dr Anthony Waddle of Macquarie University has shown a much cheaper option works for green and golden bell frogs (Litoria aurea).The fungus is known to have one weakness: heat. “In a petri dish it dies above 28°C (82°F)," Waddle told IFLScience, “with the frog’s immune system that falls to about 26°C (79°F).” Many frogs like temperatures warmer than that, and can evade the fungus through summer. However, they become vulnerable when winter comes. Captive programs to treat infected frogs often find heat a simpler solution than antifungal chemicals.Waddle and co-authors decided to take the warmth to the frogs. They built mini-saunas using PVC greenhouses, bricks with holes in them, terracotta pots, gravel, and artificial plants and placed them in the wild. As a test, half the greenhouses were shaded, while half were exposed to sunlight.For some frogs, their new accomodation really hits the jackpot, with access to water as well as protection from the elements.Image Courtesy of Anthony WaddleThe bell frogs are known to find the holes in bricks attractive homes, and took to both shaded and unshaded greenhouses with enthusiasm. Temperatures in the unshaded greenhouses were 4.5°C (8.1°F) warmer than their counterparts. When Waddle and co-authors recaptured the frogs afterward they found those living in the unshaded locations were chytrid-free, despite having been exposed before release.“The whole thing is like a mini med spa for frogs,” Waddle said in a statement. Better yet, the frog survivors had developed an immunity that makes them likely to be able to avoid future infections. You could call the project a frog vaccine, but anti-vaxxers would probably start destroying the greenhouses if they heard.Other frog species might use them, and maybe also lizards.Dr Anthony WaddleThe frogs that took residence in shaded greenhouses were much more likely to die, although the team think even they may have benefited modestly compared to those without such protection at all.Waddle told IFLScience he was assembling the refuges for $60-$70 Australian dollars (US $40-$45); “without a discount at the hardware store.” Better yet, many frogs can share one greenhouse, and Waddle said the bell frogs seem happy to do so. “Other frog species might use them, and maybe also lizards,” he said. Frogs have been the fungus’s primary victims but many other amphibians are affected as well.Other species may like their personal space more, but green and gold bell frogs are happy to share a greenhouse, and even a brick.Image Courtesy of Anthony WaddleBefore chytrid, green and gold bell frogs were common in suburban backyards in Sydney and the Central Coast, and Waddle hopes many residents will install a greenhouse in a sunny spot in their backyard. A guide is available for those interested in helping out.As summer comes, the frogs abandon their saunas and Waddle suggested homeowners could grow vegetables in them before the frogs have need again.When the frogs are this attractive, who wouldn't want to help?Image Courtesy of Anthony WaddleThe bell frog’s habitat close to population centers and love of warmth made it an ideal candidate for this research, and its popularity may inspire support. Other species may require putting greenhouses in less accessible locations, sometimes finding rare sunny spots in forests. Nevertheless, if only a few frog species can be saved this way it would be the biggest advance against chytrid since the threat was identified. “Chytrid isn’t going away, but our behavioral ecology intervention can help endangered amphibians co-exist with chytridiomycosis in their ecosystems,” said senior author Professor Rick Shine.Waddle acknowledged that if the greenhouses become too heavily used, they could attract predators, but said this is all the more reason to spread them around.Sometimes all you need to be saved is a helping hand. To test the saunas' effectiveness the frogs had first to be exposed to the fungus by swabbing.Image Courtesy of Yorick LambreaghtsSadly, not every endangered amphibian can be saved this way. The authors note Panamanian golden frogs prefer cooler temperatures, and a few extra degrees take them to temperatures where chytrid is even more lethal.Shine, a legend in Australian Zoology, has led programs that have enabled species threatened by cane toads, one of Australia’s most invasive species, to adapt. He’s also found options for cane toad control where nothing else has worked. If the mini-saunas prove suitable for many species, this work could prove even more significant.The study is published in Nature.