RadioRob

Published by New York Daily News NEW YORK — A library on Long Island has voted to remove “all Pride displays” as well as Pride-related books from its children’s sections. The Smithtown Library Board of Trustees voted 4-2 Tuesday to ban any and all displays related to LGBTQ Pride from kids’ areas at Smithtown Library buildings, a move that was met with fierce backlash and call for action by advocates. The New York Library Association slammed Smithtown’s move, calling it “a direct violation of NYLA’s commitment to intellectual freedom and the freedom to read that libraries are entrusted to uphold.” The organization reaffirmed i… Read More View the full article

[This post contains video, click to play] View the full article

Published by Radar Online Pornhub.MEGA Two of Pornhub’s top executives resigned after the company was accused of having nonconsensual videos, including ones featuring minors, available on its website, Radar has learned. The Daily Mail reported that MindGeek, which owns the adult website, stated this week that Chief Executive Officer Feras Antoon and Chief Operating Officer David Tassillo resigned after operating the website for more than a decade. Sex shop.MEGA “Antoon and Tassillo leave MindGeek’s day-to-day operations after more than a decade in leadership positions with the company,” the company said in a statement. “MindGeek’s executive leadership team will run day-to-day operations on an interim basis, with a search underway for replacements.” The New Yorker recently published an alarming report about the company, saying it allowed videos of underage and non-consenting people to show up on its platforms, including Pornhub, Brazzers, RedTube and YouPorn. According to the Daily Mail, a spokesperson for MindGeek said Antoon and Tassillo’s departures had been planned since early 2022. Both will remain shareholders of the company, the outlet reported. Sex shop.MEGA Antoon co-founded Brazzers in 2005 and later teamed up with Tassilo to buy Pornhub parent company Manwin in 2012. They renamed the company MindGeek in 2013, when the duo began controlling some of the most popular porn sites on the globe, the Daily Mail reported. MindGeek blasted the New Yorker story, which detailed a 15-year-old British girl’s attempts to have explicit videos of her removed from the company’s websites. “The New Yorker had the opportunity to seriously evaluate what works in fighting illegal material on the internet by looking at the facts, comparing the policies of platforms, and studying the results,” MindGeek’s statement said. “Instead, they chose to ignore the fact that MindGeek has more comprehensive and effective policies than any other major platform on the internet, and decided to peddle the same gross mischaracterizations that anti-porn extremists have spewed for decades.” Sex shop.MEGA Alana Evans, president of the Adult Performance Artists Guild, a union for adult pornographers, told The Washington Post that the resignations likely would not have much of an effect on MindGeek’s websites. “MindGeek is corporate porn,” she said. “Other owners and CEOs are far more involved in porn and the product.” View the full article

Published by Reuters (Reuters) – Federal prosecutors requested a 25-year prison sentence for former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin for violating George Floyd’s civil rights during his arrest and murder, online court records showed. In a motion filed on Wednesday in the District Court of Minnesota, U.S. Department of Justice attorneys said Chauvin abused his authority as a police officer and damaged public trust in law enforcement and the criminal justice system. “He acted in callous and wanton disregard to Mr. Floyd’s life,” they wrote. “Further, the defendant admitted that he knew what he was doing was wrong.” Chauvin, who is white, was seen in videos recorded by horrified onlookers kneeling on the handcuffed Floyd’s neck for more than nine minutes in a brutal arrest on a Minneapolis street corner on May 25, 2020. The murder ignited one of the largest protest movements ever seen in the United States. They recommended a 25-year prison sentence as part of a plea agreement between prosecutors and Chauvin, who pleaded guilty to violating Floyd’s civil rights in December. Chauvin faced the risk of life in prison if he went to trial. District Judge Paul Magnuson has yet to set a date for the sentencing hearing. A state judge sentenced Chauvin to 22-1/2 years in prison in June 2021 after a jury convicted him of the 2020 murder of Floyd. In the motion on Wednesday, federal prosecutors asked for the federal sentence to run concurrently with the state sentence. As part of the agreement, Chauvin also admitted he breached the civil rights of a boy he arrested in 2017 who was 14 at the time. Two other former officers involved in the incident, Tou Thao and J. Alexander Kueng, will stand trial in state court in January. Another former officer Thomas Lane has pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting manslaughter. All three were convicted of depriving Floyd of his civil rights in federal court in February. (Reporting by Brendan O’Brien, Editing by William Maclean) View the full article

Published by AFP American Revolutionary War reenactors in Boston: the right to own guns was seen by the founders of the United States in the 18th century as essential to overthrowing tyrants Washington (AFP) – It was 1776, the American colonies had just declared their independence from England, and as war raged the founding fathers were deep in debate: should Americans have the right to own firearms as individuals, or just as members of local militia? As a landmark Supreme Court decision expanded gun rights Thursday, just weeks after a mass killing of 19 children in their Texas school, the debate rages on and outsiders wonder why Americans are so wedded to the firearms used in such massacres with appalling frequency. The answer, experts say, lies both in the traditions underpinning the country’s winning its freedom from Britain, and most recently, a growing belief among consumers that they need guns for their personal safety. Over the past two decades — a period in which more than 200 million guns hit the US market — the country has shifted from “Gun Culture 1.0,” where guns were for sport and hunting, to “Gun Culture 2.0” where many Americans see them as essential to protect their homes and families. That shift has been driven heavily by advertising by the nearly $20 billion gun industry that has tapped fears of crime and racial upheaval, according to Ryan Busse, a former industry executive. Recent mass murders “are the byproduct of a gun industry business model designed to profit from increasing hatred, fear, and conspiracy,” Busse wrote in May in the online magazine The Bulwark. Yet in the wake of the May mass shootings of Black people at a supermarket in New York state and children and teachers at their school in Uvalde, Texas, consensus emerged for US lawmakers to advance some modest new gun control measures. Nearly simultaneously the US Supreme Court struck down Thursday a New York state law restricting who can carry a firearm, a significant expansion of gun rights. Guns and the new nation For the men designing the new United States in the 1770s and 1780s, there was no question about gun ownership. They said the monopoly on guns by the monarchies of Europe and their armies was the very source of oppression that the American colonists were fighting. James Madison, the “father of the constitution,” cited “the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.” But he and the other founders understood the issue was complex. The new states did not trust the nascent federal government, and wanted their own laws, and own arms. They recognized people needed to hunt and protect themselves against wild animals and thieves. But some worried more private guns could just increase frontier lawlessness. Were private guns essential to protect against tyranny? Couldn’t local armed militia fulfil that role? Or would militia become a source of local oppression? In 1791, a compromise was struck in what has become the most parsed phrase in the Constitution, the Second Amendment guaranteeing gun rights: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” 1960s gun control Over the following two centuries, guns became an essential part of American life and myth. Gun Culture 1.0, as Wake Forest University professor David Yamane describes it, was about guns as critical tools for pioneers hunting game and fending off varmints — as well as the genocidal conquest of native Americans and the control of slaves. But by the early 20th century, the increasingly urbanized United States was awash with firearms and experiencing notable levels of gun crime not seen in other countries. From 1900 to 1964, wrote the late historian Richard Hofstadter, the country recorded more than 265,000 gun homicides, 330,000 suicides, and 139,000 gun accidents. In reaction to a surge in organized crime violence, in 1934 the federal government banned machine guns and required guns to be registered and taxed. Individual states added their own controls, like bans on carrying guns in public, openly or concealed. The public was for such controls: pollster Gallup says that in 1959, 60 percent of Americans supported a complete ban on personal handguns. The assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, brought a push for strenuous regulation in 1968. But gunmakers and the increasingly assertive National Rifle Association, citing the Second Amendment, prevented new legislation from doing more than implement an easily circumvented restriction on direct mail-order gun sales. The holy Second Amendment Over the next two decades, the NRA built common cause with Republicans to insist that the Second Amendment was absolute in its protection of gun rights, and that any regulation was an attack on Americans’ “freedom.” According to Matthew Lacombe, a Barnard College professor, achieving that involved the NRA creating and advertising a distinct gun-centric ideology and social identity for gun owners. Gun owners banded together around that ideology, forming a powerful voting bloc, especially in rural areas that Republicans sought to seize from Democrats. Jessica Dawson, a professor at the West Point military academy, said the NRA made common cause with the religious right, a group that believes in Christianity’s primacy in American culture and the constitution. Drawing “on the New Christian Right’s belief in moral decay, distrust of the government, and belief in evil,” the NRA leadership “began to use more religiously coded language to elevate the Second Amendment above the restrictions of a secular government,” Dawson wrote. Self-defense Yet the shift of focus to the Second Amendment did not help gunmakers, who saw flat sales due to the steep decline by the 1990s in hunting and shooting sports. That paved the way for Gun Culture 2.0 — when the NRA and the gun industry began telling consumers that they needed personal firearms to protect themselves, according to Busse. Gun marketing increasingly showed people under attack from rioters and thieves, and hyped the need for personal “tactical” equipment. The timing paralleled Barack Obama becoming the first African American president and a rise in white nationalism. “Fifteen years ago, at the behest of the NRA, the firearms industry took a dark turn when it started marketing increasingly aggressive and militaristic guns and tactical gear,” Busse wrote. Meanwhile, many states answered worries about a perceived rise in crime by allowing people to carry guns in public without permits. In fact, violent crime has trended downward over the past two decades — though gun-related killings have surged in recent years. That, said Wake Forest’s Yamane, was a key turning point for Gun Culture 2.0, giving a sharp boost to handgun sales, which people of all races bought, amid exaggerated fears of internecine violence. Since 2009, sales have soared, topping more than 10 million a year since 2013, mainly AR-15-type assault rifles and semi-automatic pistols. “The majority of gun owners today — especially new gun owners — point to self-defense as the primary reason for owning a gun,” Yamane wrote. View the full article

Published by AFP US President Joe Biden embraces New York State Governor Kathy Hochul after a racist mass shooting in Buffalo in May, 2022 New York (AFP) – New York officials expressed shock and outrage Thursday at a Supreme Court ruling that strikes down a gun law, warning the move would undermine public safety. The 6-3 ruling, which comes as the country grapples with a shocking surge in gun crime, overturns a New York state law that required a person to prove they had legitimate self-defense needs to receive a gun permit. The ruling has repercussions across the United States, as it will prevent states from restricting people carrying guns. New York’s governor Kathy Hochul said the decision marked a “dark day” while Big Apple mayor Eric Adams said it “may have opened an additional river feeding the sea of gun violence.” “Shocking, absolutely shocking, that they have taken away our rights to have reasonable restrictions,” Hochul told reporters, breaking off from making a separate announcement. “We can have restrictions on speech — you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater but somehow there’s no restrictions allowed on the Second Amendment,” she said, referring to the constitutional amendment allowing Americans the right to bear arms. Despite a growing call for limits on firearms after two mass shootings in May stunned the country, the court sided with advocates who said the US Constitution guarantees the right to own and carry guns. Hochul, a Democrat, tweeted that the ruling was “outrageous,” accusing the six judges of acting “recklessly.” Adams, who was elected late last year on a platform to make the Big Apple safer, said the ruling “will put New Yorkers at further risk of gun violence.” “This decision may have opened an additional river feeding the sea of gun violence, but we will do everything we can to dam it. “We will work together to mitigate the risks this decision will create once it is implemented, as we cannot allow New York to become the Wild West,” the Democrat said in a statement. ‘Everything in our power’ Hochul said the state would respond by “closely reviewing our options — including calling a special session of the legislature.” “Just as we swiftly passed nation-leading gun reform legislation, I will continue to do everything in my power to keep New Yorkers safe from gun violence,” she wrote on Twitter. New York’s attorney general, Letitia James, also said she was reviewing decision. “We will continue to do everything in our power to protect New Yorkers from gun violence and preserve our state’s common sense gun laws,” she tweeted. The New York law said that to be given a permit to carry a firearm outside the home, a gun owner must clearly demonstrate that it is explicitly needed for self-defense — meaning those without the demonstrated need could not do so. Gun-rights advocates said that violated the Second Amendment of the Constitution, which says “the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The ruling comes just over a month after an 18-year-old used an AR-15-type assault rifle to kill 10 African Americans at a supermarket in Buffalo, New York, and another gunman also aged 18 and using a similar rifle killed 21 people, the majority of them children, at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas. View the full article

Published by Reuters By Richard Cowan and Moira Warburton WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Donald Trump’s failed efforts to pressure Justice Department officials to overturn his 2020 election defeat will be the topic of Thursday’s U.S. congressional hearing investigating his supporters’ Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. The hearing, set to begin at 3 p.m. EDT (1900 GMT), will take the public into the White House on Jan. 3, 2021, when there was a discussion of then-President Trump possibly firing Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen and replacing him with Jeffrey Clark, a fervent Trump supporter. Rosen is scheduled to testify before the U.S. House of Representatives select committee along with Richard Donoghue, former acting deputy attorney general, and former Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel Steven Engel. According to committee aides, Justice Department officials were also asked to take steps to encourage some states, such as Arizona and Georgia, to engineer Trump victories over Democrat Joe Biden even though Biden was the winner in those contests. The Department of Justice on Wednesday delivered grand jury subpoenas to two Republican Party officials in Georgia, as well as to Trump campaign aides in Michigan, Arizona and New Mexico, the New York Times and Washington Post reported. The department is investigating whether there was a plot to advance alternative slates of fake electors in battleground states with the goal of overturning the election result. According to one subpoena seen by Reuters that is focused on the phony slate of electors in Georgia, investigators are seeking copies of documents from October 2020 related to “any effort, plan or attempt to serve as an elector in favor of Donald J. Trump and/or (Vice President) Mike R. Pence.” They also are seeking copies of communications between would-be electors and any federal government employees, as well as communications involving Trump allies, including lawyers Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman. Thursday’s congressional hearing, the fifth this month, will examine how Trump in the waning days of his presidency “was using the Department of Justice for his own personal needs” to stay in power beyond Jan. 20, 2021, a committee aide said. In a fiery speech outside the White House that day, Trump spoke of a need to overturn his election defeat. His angry supporters stormed the Capitol, sending lawmakers and Pence fleeing for their lives. Four people died on Jan. 6, one shot by police and the others of natural causes. Some 140 police officers were injured, and one who fought rioters died the next day. Four officers later died by suicide. Nearly 850 people have been arrested for crimes related to the riot, including more than 250 charged with assaulting or impeding law enforcement. Trump continues to falsely blame his defeat on widespread fraud, a claim rejected by courts, state election officials and members of his own administration. Witnesses will testify, according to aides, that pressure was placed on Justice Department officials to publicly state that there was election fraud. The hearing will highlight how a few senior Republican officials at the Justice Department resisted the Trump-led pressure campaign. Testimony is expected to show that Clark had drafted a letter, never sent, to Georgia state lawmakers shortly after the 2020 election that falsely claimed the department had found concerns that may have influenced the election outcome there and elsewhere. The letter urged state legislators to convene special sessions to overturn the election results, but Rosen and Donoghue refused to send it. On Twitter earlier this year, Clark called himself “one of the top targets of the politically motivated J6 committee.” (Reporting by Richard Cowan, Sarah N. Lynch and Moira Warburton; Editing by Scott Malone, Howard Goller and Rosalba O’Brien) View the full article

Published by Reuters By Andrew Chung WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday shielded police from the risk of paying money damages for failing to advise criminal suspects of their rights before obtaining statements later used against them in court, siding with a Los Angeles County deputy sheriff. The justices ruled 6-3 in favor of deputy sheriff Carlos Vega, who had appealed a lower court decision reviving a lawsuit by a hospital employee named Terence Tekoh who accused the officer of violating his rights under the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. Tekoh was charged with sexually assaulting a hospital patient after Vega obtained a written confession from him without first informing the suspect of his rights through so-called Miranda warnings. Tekoh was acquitted at trial. The court’s six conservatives were in the majority in the ruling written by Justice Samuel Alito, with its three liberal members dissenting. The rights at issue were delineated in the Supreme Court’s a landmark 1966 Miranda v. Arizona ruling that, under the Fifth Amendment, police among other things must tell criminal suspects of their right to remain silent and have a lawyer present during interrogations before any statements they make may be used in a criminal trial. Vega was backed by President Joe Biden’s administration in the appeal. At issue was whether the use in court of statements collected from suspects who have not been given a Miranda warning may give rise to a civil lawsuit against the investigating officer under a federal law that lets people sue government officials for violating their constitutional rights. Vega in 2014 investigated a claim by a Los Angeles hospital patient that Tekoh, who worked as an attendant at the facility, had touched her inappropriately while she was incapacitated on a hospital bed. Vega said Tekoh voluntarily offered a written confession even though he was not under arrest or in custody. Tekoh disputes Vega’s version of events and contends that he was interrogated by Vega, who coerced a false confession. Tekoh was arrested and charged in state court with sexual assault. His incriminating statement was admitted as evidence during the trial, but a jury acquitted him. Tekoh then sued Vega in federal court, accusing the officer of violating his Fifth Amendment rights by extracting an incriminating statement without Miranda warnings, leading it to be used against him in a criminal prosecution. The jury reached a verdict in favor of Vega, but the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2021 ordered a new trial on the officer’s liability. The 9th Circuit found that using a statement taken without a Miranda warning against a defendant in a criminal trial violates the Fifth Amendment, giving rise to a claim for monetary damages against the officer who obtains the statement. Appealing to the Supreme Court, Vega’s attorneys said in a legal filing that the 9th Circuit’s decision threatened to “saddle police departments nationwide with extraordinary burdens in connection with lawful and appropriate investigative work.” Vega’s lawyers added that “virtually any police interaction with a criminal suspect” might lead to liability for officers. (Reporting by Andrew Chung; Additional reporting by Jonathan Allen; Editing by Will Dunham) View the full article

Published by Reuters By Andrew Chung and Lawrence Hurley WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday declared for the first time that the U.S. Constitution protects an individual’s right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense, handing a landmark victory to gun rights advocates in a nation deeply divided over how to address firearms violence. The 6-3 ruling, with the court’s conservative justices in the majority and liberal justices in dissent, struck down New York state’s limits on carrying concealed handguns outside the home. The court found that the law, enacted in 1913, violated a person’s right to “keep and bear arms” under the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment. The ruling, authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, declared that the Constitution protects “an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.” Thomas added: “We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need.” The New York restriction is unconstitutional because it “prevents law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms,” Thomas added. Liberal Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in dissent that the court had expanded gun rights without wrestling with the “nature or severity” of firearms violence in a country where there are more guns per person than any other nation. “I fear that the court’s interpretation ignores these significant dangers and leaves states without the ability to address them,” Breyer wrote. The justices overturned a lower court ruling throwing out a challenge to the law by two gun owners and the New York affiliate of the National Rifle Association, an influential gun rights group closely aligned with Republicans. The decision represents the court’s most important statement on gun rights in more than a decade. The court in 2008 recognized for the first time an individual’s right to keep guns at home for self-defense in a case from the District of Columbia, and in 2010 applied that right to the states. Gun rights, held dear by many Americans and promised by the country’s 18th century founders, are a contentious issue in a nation with high levels of firearms violence including numerous mass shootings. President Joe Biden’s administration backed New York in the case. The United States has experienced hundreds of deaths from dozens of mass shootings in recent years. Just in recent weeks, 19 children and two teachers were killed on May 24 at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, and 10 people were slain on May 14 at a grocery store in Buffalo, New York. The new ruling underscored how the 6-3 conservative majority on the court is sympathetic to an expansive reading of Second Amendment rights. ‘ABSOLUTELY SHOCKING’ New York Governor Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, called the ruling “absolutely shocking” and said she was “sorry this dark day has come.” Under the New York law’s “proper cause” requirement, applicants seeking an unrestricted concealed carry permits must convince a state firearms licensing officer of an actual, rather than speculative, need for self-defense. Officials could also grant licenses restricted to certain activities, such as hunting or target practice. The ruling could lead to many more people securing the licenses to carry concealed handguns in the state, undermine similar restrictions in other states and imperil other types of state and local firearms restrictions nationwide by requiring judges to scrutinize them with a more skeptical eye under the Constitution. The ruling said that New York’s concealed firearm regime is at odds with the text and history of the Second Amendment and how gun rights were protected throughout U.S. history. Firearms safety groups and gun control activists feared that a sweeping ruling against New York could undermine gun measures such as “red flag” laws targeting the firearms of people deemed dangerous by the courts, expanded criminal background checks for gun buyers or restrictions on selling untraceable “ghost” guns assembled from components purchased online. They also feared that such ruling could jeopardize bans on guns in sensitive places such as airports, courthouses, hospitals and schools. The ruling will affect at least six states including New York, as well as the District of Columbia, that empower officials to decide whether people can carry concealed handguns in public even if they pass criteria such as criminal background checks. Three other states, Connecticut, Delaware and Rhode Island, also give officials some discretion, according to the ruling. The ruling acknowledged that states can prohibit guns in “sensitive places” and that such prohibitions can likely go beyond what was historically considered a sensitive place, such as courthouses and legislative buildings. Thomas wrote that courts “can use analogies to those historical regulations” of sensitive places. But Breyer asked: “So where does that leave the many locations in a modern city with no obvious 18th- or 19th-century analogue? What about subways, nightclubs, movie theaters, and sports stadiums? The court does not say.” Biden has advocated for new gun restrictions and has called firearms violence a “national embarrassment.” The U.S. Senate is poised on Thursday for a vote to advance a bipartisan gun control bill that supporters hope will help curb mass shootings in what could become the first new federal gun law in decades. Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh in a concurring opinion said states can still impose requirements on people seeking licenses to carry firearms including fingerprinting, background checks, mental health checks and firearms training classes. In another concurring opinion, conservative Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the court has said “nothing about who may lawfully possess a firearm or the requirements that must be met to buy a gun. Nor does it decide anything about the kinds of weapons that people may possess.” Alito disputed that gun regulations like the one in New York would deter mass shootings, mentioning the recent Buffalo massacre. “The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator,” Alito wrote. (Reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham) View the full article

Published by The Mercury News SAN JOSE, Calif. — Vowing that “we aren’t going anywhere,” the performer King Art Babe forged ahead Tuesday evening with the Alameda County Library’s first Drag Queen Story Hour event since a group of apparent Proud Boys members disrupted another reading earlier this month in San Lorenzo, Calif. No disruptions were reported Tuesday as the performer — bedazzled in heels, rainbow stockings, a frilly blue dress and a unicorn tiara — held a group of preschoolers and kindergarteners in rapt attention, flipping through several books about Pride parades and dressing in drag. Often, she stopped to rem… Read More View the full article

Published by NJ.com Monkeypox has been a hot topic of conversation, especially since the first probable case of monkeypox was discovered this week in New Jersey. It was discovered that monkeypox has been spread through sexual intercourse in almost all recent cases throughout the globe. This begs the question: Is monkeypox a sexually transmitted disease (STD)? Here’s what you need to know. What is monkeypox? When was it first discovered? According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), researchers first discovered monkeypox in 1958 when a “pox-like” outbreak appeared on monkeys being kept for res… Read More View the full article

Published by BANG Showbiz English Margaret Cho used to feel “invisible” as a bisexual woman. The 53-year-old comedienne – who was previously married to Al Ridenour but split from him in 2015 – explained that the “biggest discrimination” she had faced as a bisexual woman of Asian descent was that of “invisibility” and claimed there had been a “lack of representation” for her in the media. She said: “The biggest discrimination that I felt is really invisibility. The lack of representation and lack of leading by example, lack of seeing who’s out there that I can relate to in terms of being Asian American and a queer woman. There are so many things that society has not offered until now.” However, the ‘Fire Island’ star also went on to explain that Pride Month – which takes place across the month of June and encourages the world to support the gay community – needs to be more than an annual event in order to “protect” future generations of children. She told E! News: “It’s not really just about one month of a year or one parade. I think that more than ever we have to celebrate ourselves and look to protecting our rights⁠—whether that’s protecting trans kids, trans legislation or increasing our own visibility throughout the media. It’s really about making sure we maintain and advance our own rights and abilities to continue to exist and to thrive. “You have a safe place to come out to. There is a world that is meant to be discovered and you’re not alone in your journey. So many people can help you and are very sincere in our effort to assist.” View the full article

Published by New York Daily News NEW YORK — Sylvester is getting a closer look. The late disco great is the subject of a “Sound Barrier,” a new documentary podcast that launched Wednesday on Spotify. Hosted by Dr. Jason King, a journalist, musician and New York University professor, the series will chronicle the musical career and impact of the genre-defying, gender-bending and influential icon. The vocal powerhouse behind timeless disco classics such as “You Make Me Feel (Mighty Real),” “Dance (Disco Heat)” and “Do You Wanna Funk,” Sylvester was a trailblazer in Black music and LGBTQ+ culture. Long before “Rupaul’s Drag Race… Read More View the full article

Published by Radar Online SiriusXM’s Sway in the Morning Jussie Smollett stood by his story regarding the homophobic and racist attack he allegedly encountered in January 2019, defending his innocence and sharing how he coped during his brief stint behind bars. The embattled Empire star, 40, stopped by SiriusXM’s Sway in the Morningto give a post-jail interview and detailed how he gained clarity as well as renewed his spirit. SiriusXM’s Sway in the Morning “God. And my family,” Smollett said about what he focused on while locked up. “I fasted for six-and-a-half days.” The actor said his lawyer lied about his reason behind the fast, confirming that “I wasn’t fasting for lent, I was fasting because that’s what we do in my family.” “I have never in my life, at least in my adult life, been as clear of mind as I was for those six and a half days,” he shared. “There was a part where they told me that I was getting out. Lord knows I wanted to get out.” Although he was sentenced to 150 days following his conviction on five felony counts of faking his own hate crime and falsely reporting the attack to police, Smollett was granted the opportunity to post a bail of $150,000 and leave jail six days in. As Radar previously reported, he spent four days in the psych ward over concerns about his mental state. He later spent two days in the jail’s general population. His team claimed the conditions inside the Chicago jail were “unacceptable” prior to his release. SiriusXM’s Sway in the Morning During his interview, Smollett didn’t address what will happen if his appeal fails, and he has to go back to jail and complete the remainder of his sentence. Smollett said he is fully aware that a lot of people still believe the alleged attack was a hoax, adding, “I absolutely understand why people felt betrayed. And I put that in my song Thank You God.” “If I had done something like this, it would mean that I stuck my fist in the pain of Black Americans in this country for over 400 years,” he doubled down. “It would mean that I stuck my fist in the fears of the LGBTQ community, all over the world. I’m not that mother f—–, never have been.” SiriusXM’s Sway in the Morning Smollett said he’s in good spirits these days and is avoiding negative energy. Plus, he’s also in therapy. “I’m going where the love is,” he added. “Why should we subject ourselves to unnecessary pain or salaciousness or whatever. That’s why I come home to family.” View the full article

Published by PopCrush Two Alaska Airlines employees recently took their love to new heights with a surprise dual engagement on the company’s “Pride in the Sky” flight. According to Alaska Airlines, Veronica Rojas, a flight attendant for the airline, proposed to her newly hired Alaska pilot girlfriend Alejandra Moncayo over the PA system (in English and Spanish) while on one knee. Their love story started, at 35,000 feet, after they initially met while on a flight traveling from San Francisco to Los Angeles in 2020. When the women noticed that the Alaska Airline’s “Fly with Pride” flight just happened to be retaking… Read More View the full article

Published by PsyPost New research provides evidence that sexual identity changes tend to be associated with increased psychological distress among young women. But the findings, published in the Journal of Health and Social Behavior, indicate that this association primarily impacts women who move towards more same-sex orientations. “There is a perception in our society that sexual orientation, and thus a person’s sexual identity (e.g., bisexual, lesbian, straight), sits inside them from the day they were born and does not change across their lives,” said study author Alice Campbell, a postdoctoral research fellow … Read More View the full article

Published by Reuters WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. basketball star Brittney Griner, detained in Russia for months, was not able to speak to her wife as scheduled due to a logistical error compounded by Russia’s restrictions on the U.S. embassy’s operations in Moscow, the State Department said on Tuesday. “We deeply regret that Brittney Griner was unable to speak to her wife over the weekend because of a logistical error,” State Department spokesperson Ned Price said, adding that the call has been rescheduled. The Associated Press on Tuesday reported that Griner tried to call her wife nearly a dozen times through the American embassy in Russia on their fourth anniversary on Saturday but they never connected as the phone line at the embassy was not staffed, according to Cherelle Griner. “It was a logistical issue that was compounded in part by the fact that our embassy in Moscow is under significant restrictions in terms of its staffing,” Price told reporters. The Women’s National Basketball Association (WNBA) seven-time All-Star was detained at a Moscow airport on Feb. 17 when a search of her luggage allegedly revealed multiple cannabis oil vape cartridges. She could face up to 10 years in prison. Last week her pre-trial detention was extended to July 2. Russia and the U.S. were locked in a dispute over the size and functioning of their respective diplomatic missions long before Russian President Vladimir Putin launched what he calls his “special military operation” against Ukraine on Feb. 24. In October 2021, a senior State Department official briefing reporters said the Department was getting to the point of being able to maintain only a “caretaker presence” in Russia. At the time, the staff at the embassy in Moscow — the last operational U.S. mission in the country after consulates in Vladivostok and Yekaterinburg were shuttered – had shrunk to 120 from about 1,200 in early 2017. (Reporting by Humeyra Pamuk and Daphne Psaledakis; Editing by Ken Ferris) View the full article

Published by Reuters By Shrivathsa Sridhar BENGALURU (Reuters) – Transgender cyclist Veronica Ivy questioned the move by swimming’s governing body FINA to restrict the participation of trans athletes in elite women’s competitions, telling Reuters that there had not been enough research to guide such decisions. Ivy also criticised FINA’s plans to explore an “open” category as part of its policy that was passed following a vote at its extraordinary general congress on Sunday, saying such a move does not show respect to trans athletes. FINA’s decision, the strictest by any Olympic sports body, came after members heard a report from a transgender task force comprising medical, legal and sports figures. The new eligibility policy for FINA competitions states that male-to-female transgender athletes are eligible to compete only if “they have not experienced any part of male puberty beyond Tanner Stage 2 (of puberty) or before age 12, whichever is later.” Canadian Ivy, who in 2018 became the first transgender UCI masters world track cycling champion by winning in the women’s 35-44 years category, described FINA’s policy as “unscientific”. “There hasn’t been a single peer-reviewed study on trans women competitive swimmers to show that there’s any competitive advantage for transitioning post puberty,” Ivy said. “So to single out puberty as the break-off point isn’t based on any evidence, it’s not based on them seeing an advantage for trans women, they have only looked at cisgender male athletes compared to cisgender female athletes. “That’s not how this works. When you’re trying to single out trans women, you need to study trans women athletes… FINA has not done that.” With the world championships currently taking place in Budapest, FINA was not immediately available for comment. But FINA’s contention that trans women athletes retain some physical advantages despite testosterone suppression after going through male puberty has been backed by a study from Joanna Harper, a doctoral researcher at Loughborough University. That paper concluded “strength may be well preserved” in trans women during the first three years of hormone therapy. ‘MEANINGFUL COMPETITION’ “It’s reasonable to put restrictions on trans women in international level sports competitions,” Harper said, adding she was disappointed but not surprised by FINA’s policy. “Restricting participation to only those trans women who have never experienced male puberty is not necessary to ensure meaningful competition for all women. “In terms of the open category, I’m sceptical, but I’ll reserve judgment until I see the finished product. Will there be Olympic medals in swimming in the open category? Will swimmers in that category be able to earn a living as professionals?” The debate surrounding trans women athletes has intensified after University of Pennsylvania swimmer Lia Thomas became the first transgender NCAA champion in Division I history after winning the women’s 500-yard freestyle this year. Rugby league also banned transgender players from women’s international competition on Tuesday. Soccer’s global body FIFA is in a consultation process over transgender participation while World Athletics chief Sebastian Coe has praised FINA for its stance. The International Cycling Union has also tightened its rules on transgender participation. Ivy said that FINA’s decision was likely because of Thomas, who has not won a world title or participated in the Olympics. “In the United States trans people are under attack… People trying to outlaw treatments and access to healthcare and sport… politicians calling for us to be murdered,” she said. “That’s the context in which we see something like this.” Harper said it was important for sports bodies to continue collecting data. “I’d suggest that whatever decisions they make today, they review them regularly and hopefully, as more and better data is published, they make better policies,” Harper said. (Reporting by Shrivathsa Sridhar in Bengaluru; Editing by Toby Davis) View the full article

Published by OK Magazine Mega A date fit for a Disney Princess! On Tuesday, June 21, actress Rebel Wilson took to Instagram to share a sweet snap of her and partner during a romantic date. “Circled the block and eventually got a great parking spot ,” the actress captioned a photo of her near a red car, later following up with another image of her girlfriend, Romana Agruma, and a friend. The sweet pictures come weeks after the star came out instagram, sharing a cute selfie of her and her partner. Of course, people loved seeing the Pitch Perfect alum out and about. One person wrote, “Ciao ,” while another added, “ANGELS!” A third person added, “So happy for you love!” Earlier this month, the blonde babe revealed that she was off the market. “I thought I was searching for a Disney Prince… but maybe what I really needed all this time was a Disney Princess #loveislove,” she wrote at the time. Naturally, fans and celebrities couldn’t help but gush over her romance. One person wrote, “So happy for you!!!!! ,” while another added, “YESSSSS!!!!! .” A third person gushed, “Love you #loveislove.” mega REBEL WILSON FLAUNTS INCREDIBLE WEIGHT LOSS TRANSFORMATION IN BATHING SUIT ON SUN-DRENCHED FIJI BEACH: PHOTOS The Australia native, who previously dated Jacob Busch, didn’t disclose that she was dating a woman until recently. However, she told People a few months prior that there was someone new in her life. mega “We spoke on the phone for weeks before meeting. And that was a really good way to get to know each other,” she said. “It was a bit old-school in that sense — very romantic.” “I think going through the process of finding more self-worth, I think that what you want in a partner is elevated and so it’s great to have someone who feels like an equal partner and be in a healthy relationship,” she continued. “There were times — I’m not saying with all my exes, they’re great — but there were some times that I was probably putting up with that I shouldn’t have. So it feels different to be in a really healthy relationship.” View the full article

Published by Reuters By Jonathan Stempel (Reuters) – A Delaware judge on Tuesday rejected a motion by the parent of Fox News Network to dismiss Dominion Voting Systems Inc’s $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit over the network’s 2020 presidential election coverage. Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric Davis, who last December said Dominion could sue Fox News Network, said the voting machine company can also sue Fox Corp on a theory it was directly liable for statements on the network. Fox Corp did not immediately respond to requests for comment. In a statement, Dominion said: “We are pleased to see this process moving forward to hold Fox accountable.” Dominion accused Fox of trying to avoid viewer defections to conservative rivals Newsmax and One America News by amplifying false theories that the company rigged the 2020 election so Republican Donald Trump would lose to Democrat Joe Biden. Some theories were floated by Trump surrogates like the lawyers Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell, and included claims that votes were changed through algorithms created in Venezuela to rig elections for that country’s late president Hugo Chavez. In court papers, Dominion claimed that Fox Corp, through Chairman Rupert Murdoch and his son Chief Executive Lachlan Murdoch directly participated in, approved and controlled the network’s election coverage and its aftermath. Without ruling on the merits, Davis said the allegations permitted “reasonable” inferences that Fox Corp acted with malice and proximately caused Dominion’s alleged damages. “Dominion has adequately pleaded actual malice with respect to Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch,” the judge wrote. Davis dismissed a related defamation claim against another Fox entity, Fox Broadcasting, for posting the challenged statements on fox.com, citing a lack of evidence that anyone there was “subjectively aware of anything.” Smartmatic, another voting machine company, is also seeking billions of dollars in damages from Fox and various Trump allies it has accused of defamation. The case is US Dominion Inc et al v Fox Corp, Delaware Superior Court, No. N21C-11-082. (Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Howard Goller) View the full article

Published by BANG Showbiz English Elliot Page says transitioning has “improved his life drastically”. The ‘Umbrella Academy’ actor – who came out as trans in December 2020 – urged people who have been negative about his transition to simply look at the positive impact its had on his own happiness. Appearing on ‘Late Night with Seth Meyers’, he said: “I think it’s made me better in so many facets. As a person, as a friend, and in relationships… “It’s improved my life drastically, and I hope that people who do have an issue with me could try and hear that and embrace that on some level.” While the 35-year-old star is “grateful” for the support he’s received from his loved ones, negative feedback online can be “overwhelming”. He added: “What I want to focus on right now, and has been so extraordinary, is the degree of joy that I feel, the degree of presence that I feel. “I feel a way that I really never thought possible for a long, long time. That’s really what I’m focusing on and embracing the most.” “Of course, some moments can be overwhelming.[And] I feel like it’s so unfortunate because we’re all on the same team here, you know? “Whether you’re trans, non-binary, cis, we all have these expectations and these limits and constraints… To me it would be so special for us to all be able to connect and talk about how similar we all are.” Meanwhile, Elliot noted how collaborative the upcoming third season of ‘The Umbrella Academy’ was, as he played a big role in his character Vanya Hargreeves – now Viktor – also transitioning on screen. He said: “When we first talked about it, [creator Steve Blackman] seemed really excited about incorporating it into the show.” They also worked with trans author and journalist Thomas Page McGee, and Elliot noted how he “came on board and helped out”. He gushed: “I feel proud of it and I’m excited for people to see it.” View the full article

Published by Reuters By Lisa Richwine SANTA MONICA, Calif. (Reuters) -A California jury in a civil case ruled on Tuesday that Bill Cosby sexually assaulted a woman at the Playboy Mansion in 1975 when she was a teenager and ordered the comedian to pay her $500,000 in damages for emotional distress from the incident. Judy Huth had testified that the comedian invited her and a friend to the mansion when she was 16, and he was 37, and forced her to perform a sex act. The verdict came nearly a year after Cosby was freed from prison when Pennsylvania’s highest court threw out his sexual assault conviction in a different criminal case there. Huth’s lawsuit was the first civil case against Cosby to come to trial. Huth, now 64, said she was “elated” by the ruling in the case, which she filed in 2014 after media reports detailed accusations against Cosby by multiple women. Those reports helped stir up memories of her encounter with Cosby, Huth said, and triggered four years of anxiety and other symptoms. “It’s been so many years, so many tears,” Huth told reporters outside California Superior Court in Santa Monica. “It’s been a long time coming.” Huth told the jury that Cosby had invited her and the friend to the mansion a few days after they met the then-famous actor and comedian at a public park. After she emerged from a bathroom, Cosby took her hand and used it to masturbate his penis, she said. Cosby, who did not appear in person at the trial, denied Huth’s allegation. His defense team will appeal the verdict, Cosby spokesman Andrew Wyatt said. “Mr. Cosby continues to maintain his innocence and will vigorously fight these false accusations, so that he can get back to bringing the pursuit of happiness, joy and laughter to the world,” Wyatt said in a statement. Cosby, 84, is best known for his role as the lovable husband and father in the 1980s television comedy series “The Cosby Show,” earning him the nickname “America’s Dad.” But his family-friendly reputation was shattered after more than 50 women accused him of sexual assaults over nearly five decades. Huth brought the case under a California law that allows people who claim they were abused as children to file civil cases years later as adults. Three other women who have accused Cosby of abuse attended the trial and told reporters they felt vindicated by the verdict. Lili Bernard, who has a civil lawsuit pending against Cosby in New Jersey, said the ruling was “important for every sexual assault survivor who has not received justice.” “We will never give up,” she said. The jury did not rule entirely in Huth’s favor. By a 9-3 vote, they said she had not provided “clear and convincing evidence” that Cosby had acted with “malice, oppression or fraud.” If jurors had voted yes on that question, they could have provided additional punitive damages to Huth. In video of a deposition shown to jurors, Cosby said he did not remember Huth. But he said the incident could not have happened because he would not have pursued sexual contact at that time with someone who was under age 18. Cosby attorney Jennifer Bonjean challenged Huth’s account throughout the trial, including her revised timeline. When the lawsuit was filed in December 2014, Huth said the incident occurred in 1974, when she was 15. She told jurors she recently concluded that she had been mistaken about the year and now believes it happened in 1975. (Reporting by Lisa Richwine; Writing by Tyler Clifford; Editing by Richard Chang and Richard Pullin) View the full article