Your cart is currently empty!
Tag: Law
Denis Law, Manchester United and Scotland legend, dies aged 84 | Manchester United
Denis Law, the Manchester United and Scotland legend, has died at the age of 84, his family announced on Friday.
Law scored 237 goals in 404 appearances for United and was the last surviving member of Old Trafford’s “Holy Trinity”, following the passing of George Best in 2005 and Sir Bobby Charlton in 2023. As such, his death represents a hugely significant moment in the club’s history.
For Scotland, meanwhile, Law earned 55 caps having made his international debut against Wales in October 1958, going onto score 30 goals, which remains the joint-highest total in the country’s history, alongside that of Sir Kenny Dalglish.
His family said in a statement: “It is with a heavy heart that we tell you our father Denis Law has sadly passed away. He fought a tough battle but finally he is now at peace. We would like to thank everyone who contributed to his wellbeing and care, past and much more recently. We know how much people supported and loved him and that love was always appreciated and made the difference.”
“Everyone at Manchester United is mourning the loss of Denis Law, the King of the Stretford End, who has passed away, aged 84,” United posted on X. “Our deepest condolences go out to Denis’s family and many friends. His memory will live on forever more.”
Born in Aberdeen in February 1940, Law never actually played for a Scottish club. Instead he joined Huddersfield straight from school in 1955 before moving to Manchester City five years later for a then British record fee of £55,000. A year after that he was on the move again, joining Torino. Law’s time in Italy was an unhappy one, on and off the pitch, and, as such, it was no surprise that he quickly returned to England, moving to the red half of Manchester prior to the start of the 1962-63 season.
Law started his United career as he meant to go on, scoring on his debut against West Bromwich Albion in August 1962. The goals flowed, many of which were celebrated in what soon became trademark style – arm in the air, hand clutching sleeve, finger pointing at the sky. It was copied in playgrounds across Manchester as young United supporters – and many older ones, too – fell in a love with a striker who combined flair and skill with devastating ruthlessness.
Denis Law stands in front of the ‘Holy Trinity’ statue outside Old Trafford that pays tribute to him, George Best and Sir Bobby Charlton in April 2012. Photograph: Paul Cooper/Shutterstock Deployed alongside Best and Charlton in a United side masterfully constructed from the wreckage of Munich by Sir Matt Busby, Law scored the opening goal of the 1963 FA Cup final victory over Leicester and was crucial to the First Division title wins of 1965 and 1967. In 1964 he also won the Ballon d’Or and, four years later, was primed to make the difference in the European Cup final but missed out on what was United’s defining success of the era due to a knee injury. It was a devastating blow for the then 28-year-old, with his mood perhaps only slightly lifted by Busby’s visit to his hospital bed the day after victory over Benfica at Wembley. The manager brought the European Cup with him.
The post-Busby era was one of painful transition at United and Law struggled to adapt as much as anyone at the club. He returned to City on a free transfer in July 1973 and, a year later, scored the last and arguably most famous goal of his career – the back-heel shot at Old Trafford that compounded United’s relegation to the Second Division. Law asked to be substituted soon after, such was his misery at making the home crowd miserable, and it says everything about how much he was loved by United fans that many mobbed him as he departed from view. For them ‘the King’ remained a red, despite what he had just done in blue.
Law’s last game for Scotland came against Zaire at that summer’s World Cup in west Germany. His last goal, meanwhile, came in a 2-0 win against Northern Ireland in May 1972, while his most famous was probably his strike against England, then world champions, in a 3-2 win at Wembley in April 1967. An outstanding servant for his country, Law was rightly inducted into Scottish football’s hall of fame in 2004.
It is, however, for what he did at United that Law will probably best be remembered. Reacting to his dementia diagnosis, the club described him as a “legend” and that status is encapsulated in the two statues of Law that reside at Old Trafford, one on the Stretford End concourse and the other as part of the monument to the ‘Holy Trinity’ that overlooks the stadium’s forecourt. In so many ways, Denis Law will never be forgotten by those who watched him play.
It is with great sadness that we announce the passing of Denis Law, a true footballing legend. Law, who is best known for his time at Manchester United and his success with the Scottish national team, has died at the age of 84.Law was a prolific goal scorer and a key player for both Manchester United and Scotland during his career. He is widely regarded as one of the greatest players to have ever played for both teams, and his impact on the sport will never be forgotten.
During his time at Manchester United, Law won numerous trophies, including the First Division title, the FA Cup, and the European Cup. He was also named the Ballon d’Or winner in 1964, cementing his status as one of the best players in the world at the time.
Law’s legacy will live on through his incredible contributions to both club and country, and he will always be remembered as a true footballing icon. Our thoughts and condolences go out to his family and loved ones during this difficult time. Rest in peace, Denis Law.
Tags:
Denis Law, Manchester United legend, Denis Law death, Denis Law Scotland, Denis Law dies, Denis Law Manchester United, Denis Law age 84, Denis Law tribute, Denis Law football career, Denis Law legacy, Denis Law biography, Manchester United news
#Denis #Law #Manchester #United #Scotland #legend #dies #aged #Manchester #UnitedDenis Law: Manchester United and Scotland legend dies aged 84
Law was 15 when he signed for Huddersfield, and was transferred to Manchester City four years later, in 1960, for £55,000.
A year later, he joined Torino for £110,000, but he found it difficult to settle in Italy and moved to Manchester United for £115,000 in 1962, before ending his career with City in 1974.
Law was part of the United team that became the first from England to lift the European Cup, beating Benfica 4-1 in 1968.
He also won one FA Cup and two English league title medals with United, as well as helping Scotland win the British Home Championship six times.
His 11 goals in seven Scotland appearances during 1963 – as well as scoring for a Rest of the World side against England at Wembley – went some way to helping him receive the Ballon d’Or, which at the time was the prize awarded to the best footballer in Europe.
After retiring from football, Law became a television pundit, patron of UK-based charity Football Aid, and established the Denis Law Legacy Trust, which operates programmes and activities focused around community engagement and widening sporting participation.
He was appointed CBE in 2016 for services to football and charity, received honorary degrees from Aberdeen, St Andrews and Robert Gordon universities, has had statues erected in his honour at Old Trafford and Aberdeen, and received the Freedom of the City of Aberdeen.
It is with great sadness that we announce the passing of Denis Law, a true legend of both Manchester United and the Scottish national team. Law, who was aged 84, passed away peacefully surrounded by his family.Denis Law was a prolific striker who played for Manchester United from 1962 to 1973, scoring 237 goals in 404 appearances for the club. He was known for his incredible goal-scoring ability, as well as his tenacity and skill on the pitch.
Law was also a key player for the Scottish national team, earning 55 caps and scoring 30 goals for his country. He was a beloved figure in both England and Scotland, and his impact on the world of football will never be forgotten.
Our thoughts and prayers are with Denis Law’s family and friends during this difficult time. Rest in peace, Denis, you will always be remembered as a true legend of the game.
Tags:
Denis Law, Manchester United, Scotland, legend, dies, aged 84, football, soccer, tribute, career, legacy.
#Denis #Law #Manchester #United #Scotland #legend #dies #agedSupreme Court upholds law banning TikTok if it’s not sold by its Chinese parent company
The Supreme Court on Friday unanimously upheld the federal law banning TikTok beginning Sunday unless it’s sold by its China-based parent company, holding that the risk to national security posed by its ties to China overcomes concerns about limiting speech by the app or its 170 million users in the United States.A sale does not appear imminent and, although experts have said the app will not disappear from existing users’ phones once the law takes effect on Jan. 19, new users won’t be able to download it and updates won’t be available. That will eventually render the app unworkable, the Justice Department has said in court filings.The decision came against the backdrop of unusual political agitation by President-elect Donald Trump, who vowed that he could negotiate a solution and the administration of President Joe Biden, which has signaled it won’t enforce the law beginning Sunday, his final full day in office.Trump, mindful of TikTok’s popularity, and his own 14.7 million followers on the app, finds himself on the opposite side of the argument from prominent Senate Republicans who fault TikTok’s Chinese owner for not finding a buyer before now. Trump said in a Truth Social post shortly before the decision was issued that TikTok was among the topics in his conversation Friday with Chinese leader Xi Jinping.It’s unclear what options are open to Trump once he is sworn in as president on Monday. The law allowed for a 90-day pause in the restrictions on the app if there had been progress toward a sale before it took effect. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, who defended the law at the Supreme Court for the Democratic Biden administration, told the justices last week that it’s uncertain whether the prospect of a sale once the law is in effect could trigger a 90-day respite for TikTok.“Congress has determined that divestiture is necessary to address its well-supported national security concerns regarding TikTok’s data collection practices and relationship with a foreign adversary,” the court said in an unsigned opinion, adding that the law “does not violate petitioners’ First Amendment rights.”Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Neil Gorsuch filed short separate opinions noting some reservations about the court’s decision but going along with the outcome.“Without doubt, the remedy Congress and the President chose here is dramatic,” Gorsuch wrote. Still, he said he was persuaded by the argument that China could get access to “vast troves of personal information about tens of millions of Americans.”At arguments, the justices were told by a lawyer for TikTok and ByteDance Ltd., the Chinese technology company that is its parent, how difficult it would be to consummate a deal, especially since Chinese law restricts the sale of the proprietary algorithm that has made the social media platform wildly successful.The app allows users to watch hundreds of videos in about half an hour because some are only a few seconds long, according to a lawsuit filed last year by Kentucky complaining that TikTok is designed to be addictive and harms kids’ mental health. Similar suits were filed by more than a dozen states. TikTok has called the claims inaccurate.The dispute over TikTok’s ties to China has come to embody the geopolitical competition between Washington and Beijing.“ByteDance and its Chinese Communist masters had nine months to sell TikTok before the Sunday deadline,” Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., wrote on X. “The very fact that Communist China refuses to permit its sale reveals exactly what TikTok is: a communist spy app. The Supreme Court correctly rejected TikTok’s lies and propaganda masquerading as legal arguments.”The U.S. has said it’s concerned about TikTok collecting vast swaths of user data, including sensitive information on viewing habits, that could fall into the hands of the Chinese government through coercion. Officials have also warned the algorithm that fuels what users see on the app is vulnerable to manipulation by Chinese authorities, who can use it to shape content on the platform in a way that’s difficult to detect.TikTok points out the U.S. has not presented evidence that China has attempted to manipulate content on its U.S. platform or gather American user data through TikTok.Bipartisan majorities in Congress passed legislation and Biden signed it into law in April. The law was the culmination of a yearslong saga in Washington over TikTok, which the government sees as a national security threat.TikTok, which sued the government last year over the law, has long denied it could be used as a tool of Beijing. A three-judge panel made up of two Republican appointees and a Democratic appointee unanimously upheld the law in December, prompting TikTok’s quick appeal to the Supreme Court.Without a sale to an approved buyer, the law bars app stores operated by Apple, Google and others from offering TikTok beginning on Sunday. Internet hosting services also will be prohibited from hosting TikTok.ByteDance has said it won’t sell. But some investors have been eyeing it, including Trump’s former Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and billionaire businessman Frank McCourt. McCourt’s Project Liberty initiative has said it and its unnamed partners have presented a proposal to ByteDance to acquire TikTok’s U.S. assets. The consortium, which includes “Shark Tank” host Kevin O’Leary, did not disclose the financial terms of the offer.Prelogar told the justices last week that having the law take effect “might be just the jolt” ByteDance needs to reconsider its position.
WASHINGTON —The Supreme Court on Friday unanimously upheld the federal law banning TikTok beginning Sunday unless it’s sold by its China-based parent company, holding that the risk to national security posed by its ties to China overcomes concerns about limiting speech by the app or its 170 million users in the United States.
A sale does not appear imminent and, although experts have said the app will not disappear from existing users’ phones once the law takes effect on Jan. 19, new users won’t be able to download it and updates won’t be available. That will eventually render the app unworkable, the Justice Department has said in court filings.
The decision came against the backdrop of unusual political agitation by President-elect Donald Trump, who vowed that he could negotiate a solution and the administration of President Joe Biden, which has signaled it won’t enforce the law beginning Sunday, his final full day in office.
Trump, mindful of TikTok’s popularity, and his own 14.7 million followers on the app, finds himself on the opposite side of the argument from prominent Senate Republicans who fault TikTok’s Chinese owner for not finding a buyer before now. Trump said in a Truth Social post shortly before the decision was issued that TikTok was among the topics in his conversation Friday with Chinese leader Xi Jinping.
It’s unclear what options are open to Trump once he is sworn in as president on Monday. The law allowed for a 90-day pause in the restrictions on the app if there had been progress toward a sale before it took effect. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, who defended the law at the Supreme Court for the Democratic Biden administration, told the justices last week that it’s uncertain whether the prospect of a sale once the law is in effect could trigger a 90-day respite for TikTok.
“Congress has determined that divestiture is necessary to address its well-supported national security concerns regarding TikTok’s data collection practices and relationship with a foreign adversary,” the court said in an unsigned opinion, adding that the law “does not violate petitioners’ First Amendment rights.”
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Neil Gorsuch filed short separate opinions noting some reservations about the court’s decision but going along with the outcome.
“Without doubt, the remedy Congress and the President chose here is dramatic,” Gorsuch wrote. Still, he said he was persuaded by the argument that China could get access to “vast troves of personal information about tens of millions of Americans.”
At arguments, the justices were told by a lawyer for TikTok and ByteDance Ltd., the Chinese technology company that is its parent, how difficult it would be to consummate a deal, especially since Chinese law restricts the sale of the proprietary algorithm that has made the social media platform wildly successful.
The app allows users to watch hundreds of videos in about half an hour because some are only a few seconds long, according to a lawsuit filed last year by Kentucky complaining that TikTok is designed to be addictive and harms kids’ mental health. Similar suits were filed by more than a dozen states. TikTok has called the claims inaccurate.
The dispute over TikTok’s ties to China has come to embody the geopolitical competition between Washington and Beijing.
“ByteDance and its Chinese Communist masters had nine months to sell TikTok before the Sunday deadline,” Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., wrote on X. “The very fact that Communist China refuses to permit its sale reveals exactly what TikTok is: a communist spy app. The Supreme Court correctly rejected TikTok’s lies and propaganda masquerading as legal arguments.”
The U.S. has said it’s concerned about TikTok collecting vast swaths of user data, including sensitive information on viewing habits, that could fall into the hands of the Chinese government through coercion. Officials have also warned the algorithm that fuels what users see on the app is vulnerable to manipulation by Chinese authorities, who can use it to shape content on the platform in a way that’s difficult to detect.
TikTok points out the U.S. has not presented evidence that China has attempted to manipulate content on its U.S. platform or gather American user data through TikTok.
Bipartisan majorities in Congress passed legislation and Biden signed it into law in April. The law was the culmination of a yearslong saga in Washington over TikTok, which the government sees as a national security threat.
TikTok, which sued the government last year over the law, has long denied it could be used as a tool of Beijing. A three-judge panel made up of two Republican appointees and a Democratic appointee unanimously upheld the law in December, prompting TikTok’s quick appeal to the Supreme Court.
Without a sale to an approved buyer, the law bars app stores operated by Apple, Google and others from offering TikTok beginning on Sunday. Internet hosting services also will be prohibited from hosting TikTok.
ByteDance has said it won’t sell. But some investors have been eyeing it, including Trump’s former Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and billionaire businessman Frank McCourt. McCourt’s Project Liberty initiative has said it and its unnamed partners have presented a proposal to ByteDance to acquire TikTok’s U.S. assets. The consortium, which includes “Shark Tank” host Kevin O’Leary, did not disclose the financial terms of the offer.
Prelogar told the justices last week that having the law take effect “might be just the jolt” ByteDance needs to reconsider its position.
The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of upholding a law that bans TikTok in the United States if it is not sold by its Chinese parent company, ByteDance. This decision comes after months of legal battles and controversy surrounding the popular social media app.The law, which was passed by Congress last year, requires ByteDance to sell TikTok to a U.S.-based company or face a complete ban in the country. The Supreme Court’s ruling affirms the constitutionality of this law and sets a precedent for future cases involving foreign-owned companies operating in the U.S.
Critics of the law argue that it infringes on free speech rights and unfairly targets Chinese-owned companies. However, supporters argue that it is necessary to protect national security and prevent foreign interference in U.S. elections.
The future of TikTok in the U.S. remains uncertain as ByteDance continues to search for a buyer. In the meantime, users of the app are left wondering what the future holds for their favorite platform. Stay tuned for further developments on this ongoing saga.
Tags:
Supreme Court, TikTok, Chinese parent company, ban on TikTok, legal ruling, social media app, technology news, digital marketing, US government, data privacy, internet regulation
#Supreme #Court #upholds #law #banning #TikTok #sold #Chinese #parent #companyBiden says the ERA is ‘the law of the land’ but the next steps are unclear : NPR
Demonstrators urge ratification of the equal rights amendment during a Sept. 28, 2022 rally in Washington, D.C.
Jose Luis Magana/AP
hide captiontoggle caption
Jose Luis Magana/AP
President Biden on Friday declared that he considers the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution is “the law of the land,” a surprising declaration that does not have any formal force of effect, but that is being celebrated by its backers, who plan to rally today in front of the National Archives.
The amendment would need to be formally published or certified to come into effect by the National Archivist — and when or if that will happen is unclear.
The executive branch doesn’t have a direct role in the amendment process, and Biden is not going to order the archivist to certify and publish the ERA, the White House told reporters on a conference call. A senior administration official said that the archivist’s role is “purely ministerial” in nature, meaning that the archivist is required to publish the amendment once it is ratified.
The 1970s-era amendment passed by Congress would guarantee men and women equal rights under the law, but it took until 2020 for enough state legislatures to ratify it, missing a deadline set by Congress by a long shot.
But Biden said he believed the ERA had cleared the hurdle to be added to the Constitution as its 28th Amendment when Virginia ratified it five years ago. He did not explain why he waited until the waning days of his presidency to take action.
“It is long past time to recognize the will of the American people. In keeping with my oath and duty to Constitution and country, I affirm what I believe and what three-fourths of the states have ratified: the 28th Amendment is the law of the land, guaranteeing all Americans equal rights and protections under the law regardless of their sex,” Biden said in a brief written statement.
His move comes after a campaign from Democratic lawmakers, including Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., who has said it would be a way to protect abortion rights. Gillibrand has said she expects that the matter will end up in the Supreme Court.
The issue has long been the subject of legal controversy. In 2020, the National Archivist – who is charged with making constitutional amendments official – declined to certify the amendment, citing an opinion from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. The department said it considered the ERA to be expired after a 1982 ratification deadline was missed. In 2022, the Office of Legal Counsel released an opinion affirming that 2020 decision.
Last month, the archivist said that Congress and the courts would need to take further action to lift the deadline for the amendment to be ratified – arguing that it could not legally certify and publish the ERA.
In a recent statement, President Joe Biden affirmed his support for the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), calling it “the law of the land.” However, he also acknowledged that the next steps in fully ratifying the amendment are currently unclear.The ERA, which aims to guarantee equal rights under the law regardless of sex, was first proposed in 1923 and finally passed by Congress in 1972. However, the amendment fell short of the necessary ratification by 38 states by the deadline set by Congress in 1982.
Despite this setback, efforts to revive the ERA have gained momentum in recent years, with three additional states ratifying the amendment in recent years. However, legal challenges and questions surrounding the deadline for ratification have left the amendment’s future uncertain.
Biden’s statement signals his commitment to advancing gender equality and ensuring that the ERA is fully incorporated into the Constitution. However, the path forward remains unclear, with potential legal battles and political obstacles still standing in the way.
As advocates continue to push for the ERA’s ratification, the debate over its significance and impact on gender equality in the United States is likely to intensify. Stay tuned for updates on this ongoing issue.
Tags:
Biden, ERA, Equal Rights Amendment, law of the land, next steps, unclear, NPR, Joe Biden, women’s rights, gender equality
#Biden #ERA #law #land #steps #unclear #NPRSupreme Court Could Issue Ruling Friday After Signaling It Could Uphold Law
Topline
The fate of TikTok’s U.S. operations might be decided Friday after the Supreme Court said it may announce opinions in the morning, potentially delivering a ruling on TikTok days before the ban against it is scheduled to take effect, with justices recently signaling during oral arguments they may uphold the policy.
Content creators Callie Goodwin of Columbia, S.C., (L) and Sarah Baus of Charleston, S.C., (R) speak … [+]
Key Facts
The Supreme Court’s Friday agenda noted the court “may announce opinions on the homepage beginning at 10 a.m.” EST.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments last week over whether the federal law—which requires TikTok to separate from parent company ByteDance or else be banned—is in violation of the First Amendment.
The law is now scheduled to take effect Sunday, unless the Supreme Court rules otherwise, as the court previously declined to pause the law from taking effect while it considered the case.
TikTok and content creators on the app argued the ban violates their First Amendment rights by cutting off all speech on the platform, while the federal government argued the ban is necessary for national security, given ByteDance’s Chinese ownership.
Justices on both sides of the aisle appeared skeptical of TikTok’s arguments, with Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett questioning how TikTok’s First Amendment rights are implicated when the law is specifically targeting ByteDance—a foreign-owned company—and its algorithm.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson suggested TikTok was “wrong” that the case violates its First Amendment rights, and said she thought the case was more about TikTok wanting to associate with ByteDance than its speech being silenced.
Chief Justice John Roberts said the federal law was “not a burden on” TikTok and its users’ “expression at all,” arguing Congress was fine with users’ speech on the app but just not a “foreign adversary” gathering information about the app’s users.
Justice Samuel Alito asked TikTok creators’ attorney about whether his clients would actually be harmed if TikTok went away or if they could just go to a different platform, questioning whether their attachment to TikTok was akin to “somebody’s attachment to an old article of clothing” that could be replaced or if ByteDance had truly created a “magical algorithm” that no other tech company could possibly replicate.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh brought up past examples of the U.S. blocking broadcasting companies from having ties to foreign governments and brought up the government’s concerns about TikTok collecting data on U.S. users, which he said “seems like a huge concern for the future of the country.”
What To Watch For
While the court is scheduled to release opinions Friday morning, there’s no guarantee that it will include the TikTok case. That being said, the court has signaled it would likely rule swiftly in the case, as it declined to pause the law from taking effect when they took up the case, instead scheduling oral arguments swiftly before the deadline. That suggested justices are prepared to rule imminently on the ban’s fate. It’s still possible they could delay the law from taking effect until after Jan. 19, however, if they need more time to deliberate, and justices asked Prelogar last week about whether the government agreed they could do so. She agreed they could if they need the extra time, though the government’s position is that the court should uphold the law before Jan. 19.
Crucial Quote
If the TikTok ban takes effect, “At least as I understand it, we go dark—essentially the platform shuts down,” TikTok’s lawyer Noel Francisco told the court last week about the impact of the federal law. “It’s essentially gonna stop operating, I think that’s the consequence of this law.”
Contra
While they largely appeared skeptical of TikTok’s legal case, justices also questioned the federal government’s arguments backing the law. Justice Neil Gorsuch suggested the government could just require TikTok to put up a warning saying its content may be manipulated by China—and when Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said that wouldn’t go far enough because users could still be unknowingly manipulated, responded, “That’s your best argument, is that the average American won’t be able to figure out that his cat feed on TikTok could be manipulated even though there’s a sign saying, ‘This is manipulated’?” Gorsuch also questioned whether China’s involvement with TikTok wasn’t akin to other publishers owned by foreign companies—like the Oxford University Press or German-owned Politico—or how it’s different from users not knowing how other social media companies make decisions about their content. While they questioned TikTok’s arguments against the ban, Kagan also raised concerns to Prelogar about how the law was different from attempting to regulate the U.S.’ Communist Party during the “Red Scare” in the 1950s, and Jackson questioned Prelogar’s claims that the federal law isn’t concerned at all with content on the app. “The whole point of the divestiture” is to make TikTok’s content different than it would be if the Chinese government were manipulating it, Jackson argued. Gorsuch and Roberts also raised concerns about the federal government including sealed evidence justifying the ban in the case that even TikTok’s and creators’ lawyers weren’t able to view.
Is Trump In Favor Of The Tiktok Ban?
President-elect Donald Trump is not a formal party in TikTok’s legal dispute, since he hasn’t taken office yet, but the president-elect has filed a brief with the Supreme Court saying he opposes the ban and asks the court to pause the law from taking effect until after he takes office, rather than rule quickly on it before Jan. 19. “Such a stay would vitally grant President Trump the opportunity to pursue a political resolution that could obviate the Court’s need to decide these constitutionally significant questions,” his lawyers argued to the court. The court is not bound to respond to Trump’s request, since he’s not a formal party in the case, and did not give any indication during oral arguments whether they would do so.
Can Trump Stop The Tiktok Ban?
Trump has few options to save TikTok if the ban takes effect: As president, he can order a 90-day pause on the law if there’s evidence TikTok is in the process of separating from ByteDance, but so far the company is unwilling to do so, and if Trump pauses the law without that evidence, it could get overturned in court. Trump could also try and declare TikTok is in compliance with the law—but if it’s still owned by ByteDance, that could similarly get challenged in court—or try to negotiate an agreement with ByteDance for it to sell the app. While ByteDance has so far been unwilling to sell TikTok to a U.S. company, James Lewis, director of the Strategic Technologies Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told NPR China could possibly be persuaded to approve of ByteDance selling TikTok in exchange for Trump backing off his threat of high tariffs on Chinese imports. Francisco suggested Trump could pause the ban once he takes office, saying that while he thought the app could go dark on Jan. 19, one day before Trump’s inauguration, the app could be “in a different world” after Jan. 20. Prelogar also acknowledged the ban could be halted after Trump takes office if something changed and ByteDance was willing to divest, noting the law allows for the ban to only be temporary if the situation changes. She also didn’t disagree when Kavanaugh suggested Trump could simply declare the law won’t be enforced. Legal experts have questioned whether any effort by Trump to bar his Justice Department from enforcing the law would actually be successful, however, as companies like Apple and Google are likely to comply with the law anyway in case Trump ever changed his mind.
What Happens If The Tiktok Ban Takes Effect?
If the Supreme Court upholds the ban and it takes effect on Jan. 19—or later, should they temporarily pause it—it’s still unclear what will happen and what the impact will be for TikTok users. The federal law prohibits companies like Apple and Google from hosting TikTok on their U.S. app stores, unless ByteDance divests, which means that users would no longer be able to download TikTok or update the app. That means the app would eventually be rendered obsolete and unusable as it gets out of date. The law also prohibits internet service providers from enabling TikTok’s distribution, like Oracle, which handles TikTok’s U.S. user data. The impacts of that provision are less clear: As Francisco said, TikTok has claimed that it would mean the company could shut down, saying in a filing it could no longer “provid[e] the services that enable the TikTok platform to function, effectively shutting down TikTok in the United States.” University of Minnesota law professor Alan Rozenshtein noted to CBS News TikTok could just move those servers out of the U.S., however, which would keep TikTok online in the U.S.—at least in the short term, before the app becomes outdated. It’s still unclear what will happen to other aspects of TikTok’s U.S. operations, like its Creator Fund or the TikTok shop, but the ban is expected to impact other ByteDance-owned apps like CapCut and Lemon8.
Will Bytedance Sell Tiktok?
ByteDance and TikTok have so far opposed any suggestion that they could separate, though it remains to be seen what will happen if the Supreme Court upholds the ban and it actually takes effect. Prelogar suggested during oral arguments the possibility that the Supreme Court upholding the law could be “just the jolt that Congress expected the company would need” to divest, predicting that while ByteDance and TikTok are now engaged in a game of “chicken” insisting ByteDance won’t sell TikTok as long as the ban’s legality is still in doubt, the companies could change their mind once the ban is actually a reality. It still remains to be seen if that will actually happen or who could ultimately buy TikTok, though billionaire Frank McCourt said he has made a proposal to buy TikTok’s U.S. assets.
Key Background
The federal law requiring ByteDance to divest from TikTok was enacted in April following longstanding concerns by lawmakers on both sides of the aisle about the app’s ties to China. TikTok has long denied any wrongdoing or links to the Chinese government, and the government’s specific evidence justifying the ban has not been made public and was filed in court under seal. Forbes has reported on numerous concerns involving the app, including TikTok spying on journalists, promoting Chinese propaganda that criticized U.S. politicians, mishandling user data and tracking “sensitive” words. TikTok and creators on the app filed lawsuits against the ban days after it was enacted, but a federal appeals court ruled against them in December, upholding the law. The panel of judges ruled the ban did not violate TikTok and its users’ First Amendment rights—because all content on the app will still be available if ByteDance just divests from TikTok—and upheld the government’s assessment that banning a ByteDance-owned TikTok is necessary. Judges argued the law is actually the least restrictive way of dealing with the national security concerns, given that it allows TikTok to continue operating in the U.S. if it separates from ByteDance. TikTok and creators went to the Supreme Court after the appeals court then refused to pause the law from taking effect while it appealed the case, and the Supreme Court quickly took it up and scheduled oral arguments for just weeks later.
Further Reading
The Supreme Court Could Issue a Ruling Friday After Signaling It Could Uphold LawThe Supreme Court is set to potentially issue a ruling on a significant case on Friday after signaling that it could uphold the law in question. The case has been closely watched by legal experts and commentators, as it could have far-reaching implications for future legal challenges.
The Court’s decision could have a major impact on the interpretation and enforcement of the law at issue, which has been the subject of intense debate and controversy. If the Court upholds the law, it could set a precedent for similar cases in the future and provide clarity on the legal issues at hand.
Legal experts are eagerly awaiting the Court’s ruling, which could provide important insights into the Court’s current interpretation of the law and its potential impact on future cases. Stay tuned for updates on this developing story.
Tags:
Supreme Court ruling, Friday ruling, Supreme Court decision, uphold law, legal news, SCOTUS ruling, court case outcome, legal update, judicial decision, landmark ruling, legal analysis
#Supreme #Court #Issue #Ruling #Friday #Signaling #Uphold #LawAT&T kills home Internet service in NY over law requiring $15 or $20 plans
AT&T has stopped offering its 5G home Internet service in New York instead of complying with a new state law that requires ISPs to offer $15 or $20 plans to people with low incomes.
The decision was reported yesterday by CNET and confirmed by AT&T in a statement provided to Ars today. “While we are committed to providing reliable and affordable Internet service to customers across the country, New York’s broadband law imposes harmful rate regulations that make it uneconomical for AT&T to invest in and expand our broadband infrastructure in the state,” AT&T said. “As a result, effective January 15, 2025, we will no longer be able to offer AT&T Internet Air, our fixed-wireless Internet service, to New York customers.”
New York started enforcing its Affordable Broadband Act yesterday after a legal battle of nearly four years. Broadband lobby groups convinced a federal judge to block the law in 2021, but a US appeals court reversed the ruling in April 2024, and the Supreme Court decided not to hear the case last month.
The law requires ISPs with over 20,000 customers in New York to offer $15 broadband plans with download speeds of at least 25Mbps, or $20-per-month service with 200Mbps speeds. The plans only have to be offered to households that meet income eligibility requirements, such as qualifying for the National School Lunch Program, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or Medicaid.
AT&T’s Internet Air was launched in some areas in 2023 and is now available in nearly every US state. The standard price for Internet Air is $60 a month plus taxes and fees, or $47 when bundled with an eligible mobile service. Nationwide, AT&T said it added 135,000 Internet Air customers in the most recent quarter.
Recently, AT&T has made the controversial decision to discontinue home Internet service in New York due to a new law requiring them to offer affordable plans priced at $15 or $20. This move has left many customers frustrated and without access to reliable Internet service.The company cited the new law as being economically unfeasible and unsustainable for their business model. However, many customers are outraged at being left without an essential service, especially during a time when reliable Internet is more important than ever for remote work, online schooling, and staying connected with loved ones.
This decision highlights the ongoing debate around affordable Internet access and the role of telecommunications companies in providing essential services to the public. It also raises questions about the impact of regulatory measures on the industry and the potential consequences for consumers.
As the situation unfolds, it is crucial for policymakers, telecommunications companies, and consumers to come together to find a solution that ensures affordable and reliable Internet access for all. Stay tuned for further updates on this developing story.
Tags:
- AT&T home Internet service
- AT&T broadband service
- NY Internet service
- $15 or $20 Internet plans
- AT&T service in New York
- Internet service provider in NY
- AT&T home service cancellation
- NY Internet law
- Affordable Internet plans
- AT&T service changes in NY
#ATT #kills #home #Internet #service #law #requiring #plans
New York’s $15 Broadband Law Goes Into Effect This Week
Some good news for certain residents of the Empire State. Beginning Wednesday, internet service providers in the state of New York must offer low-income residents access to monthly broadband rates of 25 megabits per second for $15, or 200Mbps for $20, under the Affordable Broadband Act.
The new law requires ISPs in the state to offer these rates despite resistance from a coalition of broadband companies who asked the US Supreme Court to block the mandate. The Supreme Court declined to hear that case in mid-December.
As of the end of 2024, the average cost that Americans pay for high-speed internet service is $63 a month across all speeds and with discounts applied, not including the cost some pay to rent equipment, which brings the average up to $78 per month. Studies have found that low-income families have struggled to pay monthly internet fees, a problem that was underscored during the COVID-19 pandemic, when families needed home internet service to virtually attend school and work.
Read more: My T-Mobile Home Internet Experience: The Good, the Bad and the Unexpected
In May last year, funds ran out for the federal Affordable Connectivity Program, which provided a discount of up to $30 per month toward internet service for eligible households and up to $75 per month for households on qualifying Tribal lands.
Some 23 million Americans were part of that program and roughly 3 million households said they planned to cancel their internet service when the program ended, according to a Benton Institute for Broadband & Society survey.
The New York law was challenged after it passed in 2021 and was held up in legal fights that culminated last April when an appeals court ruled that the Affordable Broadband Act could move forward.
Read more: Best Internet Providers for January 2025
Since the law was passed, the definition of what constitutes high-speed internet has changed, and different ISPs appear to be offering different discounted rates in New York ranging from less than $10 a month for some existing programs such as Astound’s Internet First program to $25 a month through Spectrum’s Internet Assist Program. It’s likely pricing and broadband speeds for some of these tiers may change as ISPs accommodate the law going into effect.
Watch this: Digital Heroes: Connecting New Yorkers to Affordable, High-Speed Internet Access
Exciting news for New Yorkers! Starting this week, the $15 broadband law in New York will officially go into effect. This groundbreaking legislation aims to make high-speed internet more affordable and accessible for all residents, regardless of their income level.The new law requires internet service providers to offer a basic broadband plan for just $15 per month to qualifying low-income households. This will help bridge the digital divide and ensure that everyone has the ability to stay connected, access online resources, and participate in the digital economy.
With the pandemic highlighting the importance of reliable internet access for remote work, online learning, telehealth services, and more, this law couldn’t come at a better time. It’s a major step towards creating a more equitable and inclusive society in New York.
So if you or someone you know could benefit from this affordable broadband option, be sure to reach out to your internet service provider to see if you qualify. Let’s celebrate this milestone in expanding access to essential services for all New Yorkers! #BroadbandForAll #DigitalInclusion #NewYorkStrong
Tags:
New York broadband law, $15 broadband, affordable internet in New York, broadband access in New York, New York internet law, internet affordability in New York, New York broadband accessibility, New York internet legislation
#Yorks #Broadband #Law #Effect #Week
A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law – New Edition (The University Center for Human Values Series)
Price:$19.95– $18.07
(as of Jan 04,2025 10:02:44 UTC – Details)
Publisher : Princeton University Press; New edition (January 30, 2018)
Language : English
Paperback : 200 pages
ISBN-10 : 0691174040
ISBN-13 : 978-0691174044
Item Weight : 2.31 pounds
Dimensions : 5.5 x 0.5 x 8 inchesCustomers say
Customers find the book insightful and interesting. They appreciate the discussion of originalism, including its pros and cons. The book is considered a thoughtful piece worth their time and energy.
AI-generated from the text of customer reviews
In the latest edition of “A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law,” the University Center for Human Values Series delves into the complex and evolving relationship between federal courts and the law. This comprehensive exploration of legal interpretation and decision-making sheds light on the crucial role that federal courts play in shaping our legal system.Featuring contributions from leading scholars and experts in the field, this new edition offers fresh insights and perspectives on the challenges and opportunities facing federal courts in today’s rapidly changing legal landscape. From statutory interpretation to constitutional law, this book covers a wide range of topics that are essential for understanding the role of federal courts in our society.
Whether you are a legal scholar, a practicing attorney, or simply interested in the intersection of law and society, “A Matter of Interpretation” is a must-read. Get your hands on the latest edition of this groundbreaking book and gain a deeper understanding of the complexities of federal courts and the law.
#Matter #Interpretation #Federal #Courts #Law #Edition #University #Center #Human #Values #Series,aircove | wi-fi 6 vpn router for home | protect unlimited devices | free
30-day expressvpn trial | (u.s. & canada version)
Porn access in Florida is limited as new state law takes effect
The state of Florida is cracking down on porn after a new law took effect at midnight on Jan. 1 which makes it more difficult to watch online.The world’s largest site Pornhub and others are shut off to Florida residents after Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a bill requiring porn sites to track users by verifying their age.Anyone in Florida who has tried to access sites like Pornhub or RedTube have seen messages from the company explaining they’re barred from watching porn because of the state law.“Your elected officials have required us to verify your age before granting you access to our website,” a spokeswoman said.The state now requires those who want to access online pornography to upload their driver’s licenses or even a picture of their face to verify their age.Many Florida voters argue their freedom is being violated while others say it should be banned.An 18-year-old man said it didn’t seem fair that people his age could go to war and die for their country but were required to have a driver’s licenses to access an adult website.“There’s plenty worse things to see on the internet besides porn,” he said.There’s also concern about uploading your licenses.Phil James of Fort Myers said the concern of sites getting hacked and a user’s private data being placed at risk seemed legitimate.“I think their concern about them getting hacked and all that private information getting shared is a real concern,” James explained.Many people including Pornhub fear the new state law could force people into the dark web to sites that aren’t well regulated.Pornhub warns users that requiring age verification has the potential to drive traffic to sites with far fewer safety measures in place.The company suggests users be tracked by the device they use rather than their identity.“Until a real solution is offered, we’ve made the difficult decision to completely disable the site in your region. Please contact your representatives,” a Pornhub spokeswoman said.The 18-year-old young man said it seemed strange the state is cracking down on porn when people are worried about school shootings and other tragedies.“I think that is kind of off,” he said.Florida is among 13 states now barred from accessing some porn sites.The new Florida law signed by the governor also bars teens under 14 from creating a social media account on platforms like TikTok, Instagram and Facebook.DOWNLOAD the free NBC2 News app for your latest news and weather alerts.
FORT MYERS, Fla. —The state of Florida is cracking down on porn after a new law took effect at midnight on Jan. 1 which makes it more difficult to watch online.
The world’s largest site Pornhub and others are shut off to Florida residents after Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a bill requiring porn sites to track users by verifying their age.
Anyone in Florida who has tried to access sites like Pornhub or RedTube have seen messages from the company explaining they’re barred from watching porn because of the state law.
“Your elected officials have required us to verify your age before granting you access to our website,” a spokeswoman said.
The state now requires those who want to access online pornography to upload their driver’s licenses or even a picture of their face to verify their age.
Many Florida voters argue their freedom is being violated while others say it should be banned.
An 18-year-old man said it didn’t seem fair that people his age could go to war and die for their country but were required to have a driver’s licenses to access an adult website.
“There’s plenty worse things to see on the internet besides porn,” he said.
There’s also concern about uploading your licenses.
Phil James of Fort Myers said the concern of sites getting hacked and a user’s private data being placed at risk seemed legitimate.
“I think their concern about them getting hacked and all that private information getting shared is a real concern,” James explained.
Many people including Pornhub fear the new state law could force people into the dark web to sites that aren’t well regulated.
Pornhub warns users that requiring age verification has the potential to drive traffic to sites with far fewer safety measures in place.
The company suggests users be tracked by the device they use rather than their identity.
“Until a real solution is offered, we’ve made the difficult decision to completely disable the site in your region. Please contact your representatives,” a Pornhub spokeswoman said.
The 18-year-old young man said it seemed strange the state is cracking down on porn when people are worried about school shootings and other tragedies.
“I think that is kind of off,” he said.
Florida is among 13 states now barred from accessing some porn sites.
The new Florida law signed by the governor also bars teens under 14 from creating a social media account on platforms like TikTok, Instagram and Facebook.
DOWNLOAD the free NBC2 News app for your latest news and weather alerts.
The new state law in Florida has restricted access to pornographic material, causing a stir among residents and advocates for free speech. The law, which went into effect earlier this month, requires all adult websites to verify the age of their users using a government-issued ID before allowing access to explicit content.Many argue that this law infringes on individuals’ rights to access information and express themselves freely online. However, supporters of the law believe that it is necessary to protect minors from being exposed to harmful and inappropriate content.
The debate over online pornography regulation is likely to continue as other states consider similar measures. In the meantime, residents of Florida will need to find alternative ways to access adult material or comply with the new verification requirements.
Tags:
- Florida porn access law
- Florida adult content restrictions
- New state law on porn access in Florida
- Florida internet pornography regulations
- Florida adult content limitations
- Florida adult website restrictions
- Florida porn access legislation
- Florida adult content censorship
- Florida porn access ban
- Florida porn access restrictions
#Porn #access #Florida #limited #state #law #takes #effect
Adult websites leave SC as age verification law takes effect | Palmetto Politics
COLUMBIA — Multiple adult entertainment websites have begun restricting access to users in South Carolina now that an age-verification law is officially on the books.
The law sponsored by state Rep. Travis Moore, R-Spartanburg, went into effect Jan. 1. The 2024 Child Online Safety Act was designed to restrict minors’ access to pornographic content online by requiring purveyors of adult entertainment to use “commercially reasonable” methods of using public or private transactional data to verify users’ ages.
“I don’t think it’s disputed that the law itself is reducing the number of minors who are having access to this content, period,” Moore said in an interview. “I mean, any reduction is moving in the right direction.”
The bill is a nearly identical copy of Louisiana’s Act 440, a bill sponsored by Christian family counselor and conservative state Rep. Laurie Schlegel in 2022 that has since become a template for 17 similar state anti-obscenity laws passed primarily across the South.
Methods for verifying ages include everything from so-called “digitized identification cards” to independent, third-party age-verification services used by businesses or government agencies to verify users were above the age of 18. Any website that fails to vet the ages of users who were eventually able to access adult content could be found criminally liable and sued for damages, per the S.C. law.
The bill easily passed through the Legislature. In the House, only Rep. Justin Bamberg, D-Bamberg, voted against the bill in a 113-1 vote, while the legislation passed unanimously in the Senate. But it was not without concerns.
During testimony on the bill last winter, multiple online advocacy organizations warned lawmakers such age verification policies could present significant privacy concerns for South Carolina consumers and potentially violate federal protections for anonymous speech on the internet. Others, including members of the state Senate staff, suggested the legislation could potentially fail to pass constitutional muster under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Ultimately, lawmakers decided that didn’t matter.
“Sometimes you have to make a policy position,” Sen. Sean Bennett, R-Summerville, said at the time. “One that says our children are important, that our people are important.”
Exodus of porn sites from South Carolina
The result of that policy decision has ultimately been a mass exodus of major pornographic websites from South Carolina. While some websites, like the Cypress-based Hammy Media Ltd.-owned xHamster, have begun collecting South Carolina users’ personal information to access the site, others — like sites owned by adult entertainment conglomerate Aylo — have begun restricting access to South Carolina-based IP addresses entirely, citing their concerns with the liability of managing reams of sensitive user data.
While they do not oppose age verification, Aylo representatives said in a statement, the onus should not be on individual websites but via age-restriction software on the actual devices used to access adult-related content.
“Unfortunately, the way many jurisdictions worldwide have chosen to implement age verification is ineffective, haphazard, and dangerous,” representatives for Aylo said in a statement to The Post and Courier. “Any regulations that require hundreds of thousands of adult sites to collect significant amounts of highly sensitive personal information is putting user safety in jeopardy. Moreover, as experience has demonstrated, unless properly enforced, users will simply access non-compliant sites or find other methods of evading these laws.”
Some believe that is already happening.
Bamberg told The Post and Courier that he believed South Carolina’s law to be unenforceable and potentially damaging to adult entertainment sites that actually try to moderate their content.
The Aylo-owned site Pornhub implemented major reforms to its rules after allegations it was hosting illegal content on its site in 2020. The company claims its traffic in Louisiana dropped roughly 80 percent after the implementation of that state’s law. But not because people stopped looking for porn, they argued. Instead, users simply migrated to darker corners of the internet that don’t ask users to verify age, don’t follow the law and don’t moderate the content they publish on their sites.
Even though Louisiana implemented a digital ID card called LA Wallet that was ultimately used on Aylo-owned sites, the company said it did little to stem the exodus of traffic. Traffic which, they hypothesized, then went to more unscrupulous sites.
“In practice, the laws have just made the internet more dangerous for adults and children,” they said in a statement.
In the days since the law took effect, that appears to be coming true in South Carolina. Other popular adult entertainment websites checked by The Post and Courier on Jan. 2 appear to have no forms of content moderation in place at all, while the state’s ability to prosecute internet-related crime is already somewhat limited due to the sheer scope of cyberspace. Instead, Bamberg said, it should be on parents to ensure their children are not accessing content they shouldn’t be.
“There’s nothing that the attorney general’s office or anybody’s gonna be able to do about it because it’s the internet,” he said. “It’s borderline impossible to police the internet.”
Moore acknowledged the potential for some of the adverse effects described by critics, including the possibility of users pursuing other means, like virtual private networks, to circumvent geographically-based blocks by pornography companies. But he also argued the burden on companies was relatively small, and that lawmakers have already expressed interest in legislation — like a 2023 “Default to Safety” Act proposed in both the House and the Senate — that would have put the burden for age verification directly on the makers of mobile devices.
“It’s like any other type of law you pass for any other type of issue like this,” he said. “People are going to find ways around it. But if the overall goal is to to reduce the overall access, I think it’s definitely having that effect.”
Courts to decide if laws are legal
The legality of South Carolina’s law is still an open question. A series of lower courts have upheld the legality of numerous states’ laws, including the one in Louisiana. The U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 15 is set to hear arguments in a legal challenge to an identical bill enacted in Texas on the grounds that while states may “rationally restrict minors’ access to sexual materials,” those restrictions must withstand strict levels of scrutiny if they are found to limit adults’ access to constitutionally protected speech.
The issue at the center of the debate is not simply whether age verification itself is unconstitutional, but whether sex and obscenity are inherently intertwined.
Decades of legal precedent have already determined that is not the case. And by implementing age-verification requirements for sexual content, states like Texas are effectively seeking to restrict adults’ ability to access constitutionally protected forms of expression, attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union wrote in a petition to the court.
Supporters of the laws, however, say such legislation is the surest way to ensure young children cannot access obscene materials at a time where it is arguably easier than ever.
Adult websites operating in South Carolina are scrambling to comply with a new age verification law that has recently taken effect. The law, which requires all users accessing adult content online to verify their age through a secure process, has forced several major adult websites to pull out of the state altogether.The move comes as a blow to South Carolina residents who rely on these websites for their adult entertainment needs. Many users have expressed frustration at the sudden disappearance of their favorite sites, with some even resorting to using VPNs to access them from out-of-state locations.
Industry experts warn that the new law could have far-reaching consequences for the adult entertainment industry in South Carolina, potentially leading to job losses and decreased revenue for businesses that rely on online adult content.
Despite the challenges, some adult websites have vowed to work with lawmakers to find a solution that allows them to operate legally in the state. In the meantime, users are advised to familiarize themselves with the new age verification requirements and seek alternative sources for their adult entertainment needs.
Tags:
- Adult websites
- Age verification law
- South Carolina
- Palmetto Politics
- Online age verification
- Adult content regulations
- Internet safety laws
- Age-restricted websites
- SC age verification
- Adult entertainment industry
#Adult #websites #leave #age #verification #law #takes #effect #Palmetto #Politics
