Podium Sweep for Team Monster Energy with Jaie Toohey Taking 2nd Place and Ryan Williams 3rd Place Best Trick: Ryan Williams Claims 1st Place‚ Joined by Baker (2nd Place) and Andy Buckworth (3rd Place) The 2024 BMX Triple Challenge Season Concludes with Overall Championship Titles for Baker (1st Place)‚ Williams (2nd Place)‚ and Daniel Sandoval (3rd Place)  ARLINGTON‚ Texas – February 24‚ 2024 – The 2024 season is officially a wrap! Monster Energy congratulates Monster Army rider Brady Baker on winning the BMX Dirt competition at the 2024 Monster Energy BMX Triple Challenge in Arlington‚ Texas. In the final stop of the 2024 season‚ the 21-year-old from Toms River‚ New Jersey‚ claimed his second consecutive victory of the year and won the overall series championship title. Monster Energy swept the entire podium‚ with 32-year-old Australian Jaie Toohey from Lake Munmorah taking second place and 29-year-old Ryan Williams from Sunshine Coast‚ Australia‚ in third. The dominance continued in the spectacular Best Trick contest‚ with Williams taking the win‚ followed by Baker in second place and 33-year-old Andy Buckworth in third. Team Monster Energy also swept the three top spots in overall standings: First place in the 2024 Monster Energy BMX Triple Challenge series went to Baker. Trailing only two points behind‚ Williams finished second place‚ and 29-year-old Daniel Sandoval from Corona‚ California‚ landed in third place. Way to wrap up a strong season! Presented by Monster Energy as the official title sponsor‚ the BMX Triple Challenge has been known as the most progressive contest series in BMX dirt for the past eight years. As a major platform‚ the open-invite event pitches the sport’s most established athletes against up-and-comers looking to make a name for themselves. Traditionally‚ the three-part BMX dirt competition takes place during select Monster Energy Supercross events. From February 23-24‚ the final stop in Arlington wrapped up the season outside AT&;T Stadium. On a burly three-jump dirt course‚ the best riders on the circuit battled for a last chance to sweep the season championship title. Riding conditions were perfect‚ with hardly a cloud in the sky and high temperatures. The wind was unrelenting during qualifying on Friday‚ but gusts settled down on Saturday. The level of riding in the semi-finals was mind-blowing‚ with several top-scoring runs landed. In the final‚ 21-year-old Monster Army rider Brady Baker from Toms River‚ New Jersey‚ dropped in as the top qualifier from the semis. After kicking off the year with a second-place finish in Anaheim and then clinching the win in Glendale only two weeks ago‚ Brady Baker continued to ride that wave in Arlington with flawless runs stacked with bangers. He earned the top spot with a jaw dropping run comprising of a backflip triple tailwhip‚ cashroll whip‚ and 720 double barspin. Also claiming a podium spot‚ 32-year-old Australian Jaie Toohey from Lake Munmorah‚ Australia‚ took second place. After a few nothing-front bike flips gone awry‚ the best-of-three-run format benefited Jaie Toohey when he put it all together with a double backflip‚ nothing-front bike flip‚ and a quad tailwhip. Completing the team’s podium sweep‚ 29-year-old Ryan Williams from Sunshine Coast‚ Australia‚ claimed third place by landing a double backflip 360‚ no-hander frontflip‚ and double backflip on the final hit. When the action moved into Best Trick‚ Williams continued to stoke the crowd by throwing down the heaviest tricks of the weekend. A mind-boggling double backflip 360 – a never-been-done trick nicknamed the “Aussie Roll” – earned A-Willy the top spot. Baker took home second place in Best Trick‚ netting crucial championship points that would give him the edge for the overall season title. Buckworth took third place in the heated session. When it came to awarding the trophies for overall winners‚ three Monster Energy riders took top honors in the 2024 BMX Triple Challenge series: First place went to Baker‚ who graduated from a young upstart to a household name within a single season. “To podium at all three stops and win the overall‚ it doesn’t feel real‚” said Monster Energy’s Baker. Trailing only two points behind in season standings‚ Williams finished in second place‚ and Daniel Sandoval in third place. For more on Brady Baker‚ Jaie Toohey‚ Ryan Williams‚ Daniel Sandoval‚ Andy Buckworth‚ and the Monster Energy BMX team‚ visit www.monsterenergy.com. Follow Monster Energy on YouTube‚ Facebook‚ Instagram‚ Twitter‚ and TikTok for exclusive updates as the BMX season continues. The post BMX Triple Challenge Season: Podium Sweep for Team Monster Energy appeared first on Bikernet Blog - Online Biker Magazine.

Actor and filmmaker Sylvester Stallone announced he’s “permanently” leaving the state of California for the Sunshine State. Stallone‚ 77‚ made the announcement on the season two premiere of the reality show‚ “The Family Stallone.” “After long‚ hard consideration‚ your mother and I have decided it’s time to move on and leave the state of California permanently and we’re going to go to Florida‚” Stallone said. “We’re gonna sell this house‚” he added. “We already have the place. It’s a done deal‚” he continued. “Welcome to the Free State of Florida! In addition to respecting and protecting your God-given‚ constitutional right to be free‚ you can also buy toothpaste without having an armed guard in CVS unlock it for you‚” Casey DeSantis said. WATCH: Welcome to the Free State of Florida! In addition to respecting and protecting your God-given‚ constitutional right to be free‚ you can also buy toothpaste without having an armed guard in CVS unlock it for you pic.twitter.com/bSiZiLj2wJ — Casey DeSantis (@CaseyDeSantis) February 23‚ 2024 Fox News reports: In 2021‚ the Rambo actor purchased a sprawling $35.4 million home in Palm Beach‚ according to the Palm Beach Daily News. Sly’s new Palm Beach home sits on approximately 1.5 lakefront acres‚ facing over 250 feet of beach with a dock‚ per the outlet. The total living space — including a main house‚ a guest house‚ and a pool pavilion near the keyhole-shaped pool in the backyard — is over 13‚000 square feet. Between the main and guest spaces‚ the property counts seven bedrooms and 12 baths‚ per its Realtor.com listing. Since purchasing their home in Florida three years ago‚ Stallone and his wife Jennifer Flavin have been spending time in both Florida and California. According to Business Insider‚ the episode was filmed in 2023 but aired last week. Sylvester Stallone is 'permanently' leaving California behind for Florida: 'It's a done deal' https://t.co/ONL9jCskab — Fox News (@FoxNews) February 26‚ 2024 "Rocky" star and filmmaker Sylvester Stallone says he and his wife of 26 years‚ Jennifer Flavin‚ are relocating to Florida and "permanently" ditching the state of California. https://t.co/n5bpBZkCCN https://t.co/QZrQzLr1NP — NEWSMAX (@NEWSMAX) February 25‚ 2024 Per Business Insider: Stallone and Flavin gave multiple reasons for the relocation‚ including the desire for a fresh start after their children moved out of the family home. While they didn’t mention finances‚ Florida’s lower taxes are often cited by people moving there‚ and the Stallones would most likely benefit too. The Stallone family already have an estate in Palm Beach‚ which they first visited in “The Family Stallone” season one episode three. According to Palm Beach Daily News‚ the lakefront mansion has seven bedrooms and cost $35.375 million. Sylvester Stallone’s move follows a recent trend of Americans relocating to Florida‚ which includes other celebrities like Jeff Bezos and Guy Fieri. Business Insider reported in October that Florida had the greatest number of new residents between 2021 and 2022‚ citing Census Bureau data. At the same time‚ according to the Census Bureau‚ California had the most people leave. Taxes often play a big part. Florida has no income tax and also doesn’t charge taxes on capital gains (for instance‚ from selling stock).

According to multiple reports‚ a hazmat team and fire trucks responded to the home of Donald Trump Jr. Monday afternoon after he discovered mail that had white powder inside an envelope. Trump Jr. reportedly was at his home in Jupiter‚ Florida‚ when he found the currently unidentified substance. “Multiple fire trucks and personnel in hazmat suits have been spotted outside Donald Trump Jr.’s home in Jupiter‚ Florida‚ on Monday evening after he received a letter containing an unidentified white powder‚ according to three sources familiar with the matter‚” Rawsalerts wrote. “Trump Jr.‚ the eldest son of former President Donald Trump‚ opened the envelope‚ causing the white powder to fly out‚ as reported by one of the sources. A representative for the former president’s son stated that it remains unclear what exactly the substance was but confirmed that Trump Jr.’s life does not appear to be in danger‚” Rawsalerts added. #BREAKING: Hazmat teams are on the scene at the Florida home of Donald Trump Jr. after he opened a letter and white powder came out #Jupiter | #Florida Multiple fire trucks and personnel in hazmat suits have been spotted outside Donald Trump Jr.’s home in Jupiter‚ Florida‚… pic.twitter.com/EIi9XKXzjH — R A W S A L E R T S (@rawsalerts) February 27‚ 2024 Per Axios: “The test results of the substance came up inconclusive on what it was exactly‚ but officials on the scene do not believe it is deadly‚” a spokesman for Trump said. Representatives for the Jupiter Police Department did not immediately respond to Axios’ request for comment. EXCLUSIVE REACTION: Letter with white powder triggers hazmat response to home of Donald Trump Jr.https://t.co/VUGvAKdgzM — Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) February 27‚ 2024 “This is now the second time a demented leftist has mailed me a death threat with white powder. If this happened twice to a prominent Democrat‚ there would be hearings in Congress‚ but since my last name is Trump‚ the media will move on in a day. The hatred the left has for my family knows no bounds‚” Trump Jr. told MxM News. EXCLUSIVE: Hazmat Unit Descends On Donald Trump Jr.’s Home After He Received Death Threat‚ White Powder [PHOTOS] Read my latest here first for @DailyCaller and see all the photos here first: https://t.co/fyLP20UcMn — Henry Rodgers (@henryrodgersdc) February 26‚ 2024 From Daily Mail: Multiple first responders were on the scene at the $9.7 million Jupiter home Trump Jr. shares with girlfriend Kimberly Guilfoyle after he opened up the letter and reportedly white powder came flying out‚ The Daily Beast reported. ‘The test results of the substance came up inconclusive on what it was exactly‚ but officials on the scene do not believe it is deadly‚’ a spokesperson for Trump Jr. said. However‚ that hasn’t stopped the conservative firebrand from calling out a double standard in political media. ‘It’s just become a little bit too commonplace that this sort of stuff happens‚’ he told The Daily Caller. ‘Clearly‚ if this happened to a prominent Democrat it wouldn’t be tolerated and would drive news coverage for weeks. The media would blame all Republicans and force them to answer for it‚ But since it’s me‚ radical haters on the left will largely get a free pass and the media will barely flinch.’ He said that the incident was a sign of ‘the left’s hatred’ of his father driving ‘people to do such crazy things. ‘It doesn’t matter what your politics are‚ this type of crap is unacceptable‚’ he added. Trump Jr. said that this had happened previously during his father’s presidency while he was living with his then-wife and children. This story is developing. 

Lou Reed's body of work grew from uncertain beginnings through a prolific and wildly diverse 70s surge and a late 80s revival

The Supreme Court on Monday heard hours of argument in two free-speech cases‚ Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton. NetChoice‚ an industry group representing large tech companies‚ argued that laws enacted by Texas and Florida restricting the companies’ ability to demote or remove user content violated the First Amendment rights of social media platforms. Listening to NetChoice’s arguments‚ one gets the impression that the states are forcing social media to broadcast pro-terrorist‚ pro-suicide messages. They are not. And the hysterics of NetChoice’s hypotheticals should make a fair-minded person skeptical.  Rather‚ the cases are‚ to paraphrase the late historian and scholar Christopher Dawson an effort by the nation’s de facto social powers to exempt themselves from all interference by lawful political authority. The dominant social media platforms—Facebook‚ X (formerly Twitter)‚ et al.—attained their dominance by marketing themselves as an open digital marketplace for ideas. The question now is whether states have any authority to regulate these private businesses to keep the digital “public square” available to speech and speakers that the platforms disfavor.  Whether states have such authority depends on how much of social media platforms’ operations are protected by the First Amendment: All? Some? None? Do platforms such as Facebook merely host the speech of others‚ like providers of cellphone service?  Is algorithmic content curation inherently expressive like the decisions of a newspaper’s editorial board? Is the decision to ban certain users censorious in the expressive sense or merely censorship? Texas and Florida contended that little of what social media platforms do to user content qualifies as expressive. Throughout oral arguments‚ the solicitor generals of Florida and Texas maintained that when the platforms demoted or promoted‚ hosted or banned‚ they were engaged in conduct‚ unprotected by the First Amendment‚ not in speech. Thus‚ it was perfectly constitutional for Florida to prevent social media sites from deplatforming candidates for public office or for Texas to prevent platforms from deleting posts based on viewpoints.    Advocating for NetChoice‚ former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement argued that virtually everything platforms do is expressive because their very business is to disseminate speech.   Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Neil Gorsuch took a more nuanced view. Rather than looking at the nature of social media’s business‚ both justices insisted that the matter needed to be assessed at the level of function. Facebook‚ for instance‚ offers users the ability to post public comments or to send someone a direct message. Contrary to Clement’s assertions‚ the justices indicated that the First Amendment concerns would be different when the platform was simply transmitting a message versus when it was curating or promoting content.  Even the word for what the platforms do with user content became a matter of semantic dispute. Justice Clarence Thomas pressed Clement for a case in which the court had declared that “censorship” enjoyed First Amendment protection. Justice Samuel Alito described as “Orwellian” the platforms’ insistence that deleting users and posts was merely “content moderation.” Justice Brett Kavanaugh‚ in a plaintive echo of the Reagan era‚ rejoined that “When I think of Orwellian‚ I think of the state‚” implying as he did throughout the argument that censorship cannot be an issue when a private company is the censor.  Other questions were raised without answers. Were social media platforms common carriers like telephone companies and thus duty-bound to welcome all patrons? Were the states’ laws making pernicious content-based distinctions favoring conservative speech or were they simply preventing the platforms from discriminating based on speech content? Even Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar made a guest appearance on behalf of the federal government (not a party to either case) to argue that while not every business transmitting speech enjoyed First Amendment protection‚ contra the states‚ there was no common-carrier exception to the First Amendment. Yet these conceptual concerns‚ so central to the case‚ are unlikely to be the basis of the court’s decision this term. That’s because the dominant theme preoccupying the justices during oral argument was the cases’ peculiar procedural posture. NetChoice‚ in its haste to stop the states’ laws from going into effect‚ brought what is known as a pre-enforcement facial challenge. To sustain that challenge before either law is applied or interpreted‚ NetChoice has the burden to show that the laws have no constitutionally legitimate applications. That’s a tall order‚ especially when the record in both cases left it ambiguous which platforms were even covered.    The cases’ posture concerned justices across the ideological spectrum. Some‚ like Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett‚ seemed open to the argument that the platforms engaged in expressive conduct when they curated content for user consumption. But they were concerned that both state laws could accomplish lawful ends such as preventing Gmail from blocking email accounts of controversial public figures such as Tucker Carlson and Rachel Maddow‚ a hypothetical posed by Alito. As Jackson put it:  “I think that’s a problem in this case. We’re not aware of all the facts.” Why should a facial challenge cause the justices to hesitate? In a word‚ federalism. Our system of vertically bifurcated sovereignty entails a presumption that state laws are valid when properly enacted. As judgments of the people’s representatives‚ state laws must be given effect unless and until they are shown to be patently unconstitutional. As Solicitor General Aaron Nielson said‚ “Texas has a right to protect Texans.” So‚ what outcome should one expect when the court rules on these cases by June?  The answer is likely a remand and more litigation in the lower courts over the particulars of when and to what extent the respective state laws apply. But the core concerns will remain alive. As today’s arguments make clear‚ America is at a crossroads when it comes to limiting the influence of the major tech platforms‚ which hold tremendous sway over everything from the content of our debates to the socialization of our children. Under the status quo‚ social media platforms enjoy near-limitless discretion to suppress whatever views they wish‚ for any reason whatsoever. If the Supreme Court eventually invalidates state bans on viewpoint-based discrimination‚ states would have far fewer options to address the most egregious censorship practices. Because these platforms are the modern public square‚ their censorial conduct undermines the free speech of everyday Americans. Even worse‚ a full embrace of the tech companies’ radical First Amendment theory runs the risk of entrenching censorship well beyond social media. NetChoice seems to argue—or at least imply—that the mere act of allowing or disallowing content on a social media service is a communicative act and‚ therefore‚ is the platforms’ own protected speech. On this theory‚ by merely hosting a user’s content (e.g.‚ posts‚ websites‚ videos‚ electronic files)‚ a digital service provider “participates” in that speech and is thus free to refuse service to anyone it doesn’t like. Such a holding risks foreclosing reasonable legislative measures to prevent viewpoint discrimination against users on numerous other digital services.  For instance‚ Amazon has removed or reduced visibility for books from its e-commerce site. Apple has also removed apps from its App Store‚ web hosting services like Go Daddy have been known to deplatform websites‚ and email services such as Gmail may have disadvantaged certain messages based‚ in part‚ on their political content. Applying the First Amendment in the way NetChoice proposes would undermine important protections against these and other forms of censorship.   When asked how the state laws might affect his clients once applied‚ Clement told the court‚ “We’d have to fundamentally change our business models.” To this‚ most Americans might say “the sooner‚ the better.” Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post To Censor or to Host? Supreme Court Hears Social Media Platforms’ Free Speech Challenge to State Laws appeared first on The Daily Signal.