hacklink hack forum hacklink film izle hacklink marsbahisizmir escortsahabetpornJojobet

Tag: Judge

  • Judge largely blocks Tennessee’s porn site age verification law as other states enforce theirs

    Judge largely blocks Tennessee’s porn site age verification law as other states enforce theirs

    NASHVILLE, Tenn. — A Tennessee law requiring pornographic websites to verify their visitors’ age was largely blocked in court before it was to take effect Jan. 1, even as similar laws kicked in for Florida and South Carolina and remained in effect for more than a dozen other states.

    On Dec. 30, U.S. District Judge Sheryl Lipman in Memphis ruled that Tennessee’s law would likely suppress the First Amendment free speech rights of adults without actually preventing children from accessing the harmful material in question. The state attorney general’s office is appealing the decision.

    The Free Speech Coalition, an adult entertainment trade group, is suing over Tennessee’s law and those in a half-dozen other states. The coalition lists some 19 states that have passed similar laws. One prominent adult website has cut off access in several states due to their laws.

    The issue will hit the U.S. Supreme Court for oral arguments regarding Texas’ law next week.

    No one voted against Tennessee’s law last year when it passed the Republican-supermajority legislature, and GOP Gov. Bill Lee signed off on it.

    The law would require porn websites to verify visitors are at least 18 years old, threatening felony penalties and civil liability possible for violators running the sites. They could match a photo to someone’s ID, or use certain “public or private transactional data” to prove someone’s age. Website leaders could not retain personally identifying information and would have to keep anonymized data.

    The Free Speech Coalition and other plaintiffs sued, winning a preliminary injunction that blocks the attorney general from enforcement while court proceedings continue. However, the coalition expressed concern that private lawsuits or actions by individual district attorneys could be possible.

    In her ruling, Judge Lipman wrote that parental controls on minors’ devices are more effective and less restrictive.

    She wrote that under Tennessee’s law, minors still could access adult sites using VPNs, or virtual private networks, that mask a user’s location. Or, they could view pornographic material on social media sites, which are unlikely to reach the law’s threshold of one-third of its content considered harmful to minors.

    The judge also said the impact could be overly broad, potentially affecting other plaintiffs such as an online educational platform focused on sexual wellness.

    She noted that Tennessee’s definition of “content harmful to minors” extends to include text. She specifically mentioned that the phrase “the human nipple,” or crude combinations of keyboard characters, would be considered harmful as long as they lack “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.”

    Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti’s office is asking the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to let the law take effect as the lawsuit proceeds. His spokesperson, Chad Kubis, noted that other appeals courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, allowed similar laws to take effect.

    “The Protect Tennessee Minors Act institutes common sense age verification to stop kids from accessing explicit obscene content while protecting the privacy of adults who choose to do so,” Kubis said.

    The Free Speech Coalition has argued the law would be ineffective, unconstitutional and force people to transfer sensitive information.

    “This is a deeply flawed law that put website operators at risk of criminal prosecution for something as trivial as a mention of the human nipple,” said Free Speech Coalition Executive Director Alison Boden.

    As verification laws took effect in Florida and South Carolina last week, website PornHub cut off access there and posted a message encouraging people to contact political decision-makers. They’ve acted similarly in other states that passed verification requirements.

    Judges had paused the laws in Indiana and Texas. But circuit appeals courts stepped in to allow enforcement.

    The Supreme Court declined to halt Texas’ law in April while the court action continues. The next step is Supreme Court oral arguments on Jan. 15.

    Another age verification law is set to begin in July in Georgia.

    Source link

  • Alex Jones keeps Infowars for now after judge rejects The Onion’s winning auction bid

    Alex Jones keeps Infowars for now after judge rejects The Onion’s winning auction bid

    A federal judge in Texas rejected the auction sale of Alex Jones’ Infowars to The Onion satirical news outlet, criticizing the bidding for the conspiracy theory platform as flawed as well as how much money families of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary shooting stood to receive.

    The decision late Tuesday night is a victory for Jones, whose Infowars site was put up for sale as part of his bankruptcy case in the wake of the nearly $1.5 billion that courts have ordered him to pay over falsely calling one of the deadliest school shootings in U.S. history a hoax. Families of the Sandy Hook victims had backed The Onion’s bid.

    Following a two-day hearing in Houston, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Lopez said he would not approve the sale, while citing concerns about transparency in the auction. That clears the way for Jones to keep — at least for now — Infowars, which is headquartered in Austin, Texas. The Onion had planned to kick Jones out and relaunch Infowars in January as a parody.

    “We are deeply disappointed in today’s decision, but The Onion will continue to seek a resolution that helps the Sandy Hook families receive a positive outcome for the horror they endured,” Ben Collins, CEO of The Onion’s parent company, Global Tetrahedron, posted on social media late Tuesday.

    Lopez cited problems — but no wrongdoing — with the auction process. He said he said he did not think that those involved in the auction acted in bad faith and that everyone “put their best foot forward and tried to play within the rules.”

    Still, Lopez said he said he did not want another auction and left it up to the trustee who oversaw the auction to determine the next steps.

    The Onion offered $1.75 million in cash and other incentives for Infowars’ assets in the auction. First United American Companies, which runs a website in Jones’ name that sells nutritional supplements, bid $3.5 million.

    The bids were a fraction of the money that Jones has been ordered to pay in defamation lawsuits in Connecticut and Texas filed by relatives of victims of the Sandy Hook shooting. Lopez said the auction outcome “left a lot of money on the table” for families.

    “You got to scratch and claw and get everything you can for them,” Lopez said.

    Christopher Mattei, a lawyer for the Sandy Hook families who sued Jones in Connecticut, said they were disappointed in the judge’s ruling.

    “These families, who have already persevered through countless delays and roadblocks, remain resilient and determined as ever to hold Alex Jones and his corrupt businesses accountable for the harm he has caused,” Mattei said in a statement. “This decision doesn’t change the fact that, soon, Alex Jones will begin to pay his debt to these families and he will continue doing so for as long as it takes.”

    Jones, who did not attend the proceedings, went back on his program late Tuesday to celebrate the judge’s ruling, calling the auction “ridiculous” and “fraudulent.”

    Although The Onion’s cash offer was lower than that of First United American, it also included a pledge by many of the Sandy Hook families to forgo $750,000 of the auction proceeds due to them and give it to other creditors, providing the other creditors more money than they would receive under First United American’s bid.

    The sale of Infowars is part of Jones’ personal bankruptcy case, which he filed in late 2022 after he was ordered to pay nearly $1.5 billion in defamation lawsuits in Connecticut and Texas filed by relatives of victims of the Sandy Hook shooting.

    Jones repeatedly called the shooting that killed 20 children and six educators a hoax staged by actors and aimed at increasing gun control. Parents and children of many of the victims testified in court that they were traumatized by Jones’ conspiracies and threats from his followers.

    Jones has since acknowledged that the Connecticut school shooting happened.

    Most of the proceeds from the sale of Infowars, as well as many of Jones’ personal assets, will go to the Sandy Hook families. Some proceeds will go to Jones’ other creditors.

    Trustee Christopher Murray had defended The Onion’s bid in court this week, testifying that he did not favor either bidder over the other and was not biased.

    He also revealed that First United American submitted a revised bid in recent days, but he said he could not accept it because the Sandy Hook families in the Connecticut lawsuit objected.

    The Onion valued its bid, with the Sandy Hook families’ offer, at $7 million because that amount was equal to a purchase price that would provide the same amount of money to the other creditors.

    In a court filing last month, Murray’s lawyers called First United American’s request to disqualify The Onion’s bid a “disappointed bidder’s improper attempt to influence an otherwise fair and open election process.”

    Jones’ attorney, Ben Broocks, noted that the Sandy Hook lawsuit judgments could be overturned in pending appeals and got Murray to acknowledge that the Sandy Hook families’ offer in The Onion bid could fall apart if that happens. That’s because the percentage of the auction proceeds they would be entitled to could drop sharply and they wouldn’t get the $750,000 from the sale to give to other creditors.

    Up for sale were all the equipment and other assets in the Infowars studio in Austin, as well as the rights to its social media accounts, websites, video archive and product trademarks. Jones uses the studio to broadcast his far-right, conspiracy theory-filled shows on the Infowars website, his account on the social platform X and radio stations. Many of Jones’ personal assets also are being sold.

    Jones has set up another studio, websites and social media accounts in case The Onion wins approval to buy Infowars and kicks him out. Jones has said he could continue using the Infowars platforms if the auction winner is friendly to him.

    Jones is appealing the money has been ordered to pay in judgments citing free speech rights.

    Source link

  • Athletes in $2.8 billion college lawsuit tell judge they want to create a players’ association

    Athletes in $2.8 billion college lawsuit tell judge they want to create a players’ association

    The athletes whose lawsuit against the NCAA is primed to pave the way for schools to pay them directly also want a players’ association to represent them in the complex contract negotiations that have overtaken the sport.

    Grant House, Sedona Prince and Nya Harrison wrote to the judge overseeing what’s known as the House settlement, saying that although they are generally happy with the terms of the proposed settlement “there still remains a critical need for structural changes to protect athletes and prevent the failures of the past.”

    That, they said, would be a players’ association, which they believe will help their voices be better heard as the NCAA and its schools move toward a system to share hundreds of millions in TV and ticket revenue with players.

    The players said an association would help standardize name-image-likeness (NIL) contracts to establish minimum payments and health protections “and to create an ecosystem where athletes can thrive.”

    “While professional leagues include athletes in these decisions through their respective players’ associations, the college system continues to prevent our players’ association from representing us at the decision-making tables,” the letter said.

    The settlement, with a price tag of $2.8 billion that will be distributed over the next 10 years to players both past and present, does not address whether athletes should be considered employees of the schools. That’s an issue the NCAA is asking Congress to prevent for fear the costs could wreck college sports.

    The NCAA did not immediately respond to a message from The Associated Press seeking comment Tuesday.

    Earlier this year, the head of the National College Players Association confirmed that a licensing organization that works with the NFL Players’ Association had emailed thousands of college football players, encouraging them to join the NCPA. Separately, the chairman of another group trying to organize college athletes, athletes.org, said it already had some 4,000 members. The players who wrote the letter said they wanted to work with athletes.org.

    A hearing to approve the settlement is set for April 7. The request could shape how U.S. Judge Claudia Wilken views the settlement’s long-term chances of succeeding, but plaintiffs’ attorney Jeffrey Kessler said the letter was an endorsement of the settlement and he doesn’t expect it to impact the agreement.

    “All three of these athletes fully support approval of the settlement but wanted to express their additional views that a players’ association is also desirable,” Kessler said. “I salute their devotion to these issues and their fellow college athletes.”

    Whether college athletes can ever be considered school employees is a thorny topic. There are multiple issues in front of the National Labor Relations Board, including a complaint against USC and the Pac-12; a unionization effort by the men’s basketball team at Dartmouth; an unfair labor complaint against Notre Dame; and a federal lawsuit in Pennsylvania filed by former Villanova football player Trey Johnson.

    All of it could lead to college athletes being granted employee status, though court battles are assured.

    ___

    Get poll alerts and updates on the AP Top 25 throughout the season. Sign up here. AP college football: https://apnews.com/hub/ap-top-25-college-football-poll and https://apnews.com/hub/college-football

    Source link

  • The Onion’s bid for Infowars is still in court as judge reviews auction

    The Onion’s bid for Infowars is still in court as judge reviews auction

    A bankruptcy judge scrutinizing The Onion’s bid for Alex Jones ’ Infowars platform was expected to hear a second day of testimony Tuesday after an auctioneer defended the satirical news outlet’s winning offer in November.

    It is not clear how quickly U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Lopez in Houston will decide whether to approve the bid. The Onion, which wants to turn Infowars’ website and social media accounts into parodies, offered $1.75 million for Infowars’ assets in the auction.

    Jones did not attend Monday’s start of the key hearing and instead continued to broadcast from his studios in Austin.

    Jeff Tanenbaum, president of ThreeSixty Asset Advisors, was grilled by lawyers for Jones and the company in a Houston courtroom on Monday over how The Onion’s bid came to be valued at $7 million and why a live auction was not held. He defended both the value of the bid and its selection after the two sealed offers were opened.

    Lopez could ultimately decide whether to void The Onion’s bid, name the Jones-affiliated company the winner or hold another auction, among other possibilities.

    Jones and First United American Companies, which runs a website in Jones’ name that sells nutritional supplements and submitted the other bid, are alleging fraud and collusion in the auction that concluded on Nov. 14. The trustee and The Onion deny the allegations, accusing Jones and the company of sour grapes. First United American Companies bid $3.5 million.

    The sale of Infowars is part of Jones’ personal bankruptcy case, which he filed in late 2022 after he was ordered to pay nearly $1.5 billion in defamation lawsuits in Connecticut and Texas filed by relatives of victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Connecticut. Jones repeatedly called the 2012 shooting that killed 20 children and six educators a hoax staged by actors and aimed at increasing gun control.

    Most of the proceeds from the sale of Infowars, as well as many of Jones’ personal assets, will go to the Sandy Hook families to help satisfy judgments issued by juries and judges in state courts in Connecticut and Texas. Some proceeds will go to Jones’ other creditors.

    The Onion’s bid also included a pledge by many of the Sandy Hook families to forgo some or all of the auction proceeds due to them to give other creditors a total of $100,000 more than they would receive under other bids.

    The trustee, Christopher Murray, chose The Onion, saying its proposal was better for creditors because they would receive more money. The Onion valued the bid, with the Sandy Hook families’ offer, at $7 million, because that amount was equal to a purchase price that would provide the same amount of money to the other creditors.

    Tanenbaum testified that he agreed with the $7 million valuation and believed The Onion’s bid conformed to the auction rules.

    A lawyer for Jones, Ben Broocks, asked Tanenbaum how it was possible that the Sandy Hook families’ offer boosted The Onion’s offer to such a high amount.

    “It means the purchase price value has gone up because another purchase price would have to be higher than that value in order to provide the same net benefit to that group of creditors,” Tanenbaum said.

    During his opening argument, Broocks said there was no way The Onion should have been chosen over First United American.

    “How does a $1.75 million bid beat a $3.5 million bid?” he asked. “How is that $1.75 million greater? Well, it’s voodoo economics to use a phrase.”

    Joshua Wolfshohl, an attorney for Murray, told the judge Monday that no wrongdoing occurred during the auction. He called the complaints by Jones and First United American Companies unfounded.

    “The vast majority of their complaints are just fantastic, imagined conspiracy theories that have no basis in reality,” he said.

    Murray, The Onion and the Sandy families deny allegations of wrongdoing. In his own court filing, Murray called the allegations “a disappointed bidder’s improper attempt to influence an otherwise fair and open auction process.”

    Up for sale at the auction were all the equipment and other assets in the Infowars studio in Austin, Texas, as well as its social media accounts, websites, video archive and product trademarks. Jones uses the studio to broadcast his far-right, conspiracy theory-filled shows on the Infowars website, his account on the social platform X and radio stations.

    Jones has set up another studio, websites and social media accounts in case The Onion wins approval to buy Infowars and kicks him out. Jones has said he could continue using the Infowars platforms if the auction winner is friendly to him.

    Jones is appealing the $1.5 billion in judgments citing free speech rights but has acknowledged that the school shooting happened.

    Source link

  • The Onion’s bid to buy Infowars goes before judge as Alex Jones tries stopping sale

    The Onion’s bid to buy Infowars goes before judge as Alex Jones tries stopping sale

    A bid by The Onion satirical news outlet to buy Alex Jones’ conspiracy theory platform Infowars is scheduled to return Monday to a Texas courtroom, where a judge will be deciding whether a bankruptcy auction was properly run as Jones alleges collusion and fraud.

    U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Lopez in Houston is set to hear testimony about the November auction and how a trustee chose The Onion over the only other bidder — a company affiliated with Jones that offered twice as much money as The Onion.

    The sale of Infowars is part of Jones’ personal bankruptcy case, which he filed in late 2022 after he was ordered to pay nearly $1.5 billion in defamation lawsuits filed by relatives of victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Connecticut. Jones repeatedly called the 2012 shooting that killed 20 children and six educators a hoax staged by actors and aimed at increasing gun control.

    Most of the proceeds from the sale of Infowars, as well as many of Jones’ personal assets, will go to the Sandy Hook families to help satisfy judgments issued by juries and judges in state courts in Connecticut and Texas. Some proceeds will go to Jones’ other creditors.

    The Onion, which wants to turn Infowars’ website and social media accounts into parodies, offered $1.75 million for Infowars’ assets in the auction, while First United American Companies — which runs a website in Jones’ name that sells nutritional supplements — bid $3.5 million.

    The Onion’s bid also included a pledge by many of the Sandy Hook families to forgo some or all of the auction proceeds due to them, in order to give other creditors a total of $100,000 more than they would receive under other bids.

    The trustee, Christopher Murray, chose The Onion, saying its proposal was better for creditors because they would receive more money.

    In court filings, Jones and First United American Companies accused Murray, The Onion and the Sandy Hook families of illegally colluding on the bidding, committing fraud and violating the judge’s rules for the auction.

    Murray, The Onion and the families deny the allegations. In his own court filing, Murray called the allegations “a disappointed bidder’s improper attempt to influence an otherwise fair and open auction process.”

    Up for sale at the auction were all the equipment and other assets in the Infowars studio in Austin, Texas, as well as its social media accounts, websites, video archive and product trademarks. Jones uses the studio to broadcast his far-right, conspiracy theory-filled shows on the Infowars website, his account on the social platform X and radio stations.

    Jones has set up another studio, websites and social media accounts in case The Onion wins approval to buy Infowars and kicks him out. Jones has said he could continue using the Infowars platforms if the auction winner is friendly to him.

    Jones is appealing the $1.5 billion in judgments citing free speech rights but has acknowledged that the school shooting happened.

    Source link

  • Delaware judge reaffirms ruling that invalidated massive Tesla pay package for Elon Musk

    Delaware judge reaffirms ruling that invalidated massive Tesla pay package for Elon Musk

    DOVER, Del. — A Delaware judge has reaffirmed her ruling that Tesla must revoke Elon Musk’s multibillion-dollar pay package

    Chancellor Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick on Monday denied a request by attorneys for Musk and Tesla’s corporate directors to vacate her ruling earlier this year requiring the company to rescind the unprecedented pay package.

    McCormick also rejected an equally unprecedented and massive fee request by plaintiff attorneys, who argued that they were entitled to legal fees in the form of Tesla stock valued at more than $5 billion. The judge said the attorneys were entitled to a fee award of $345 million.

    The rulings came in a lawsuit filed by a Tesla stockholder who challenged Musk’s 2018 compensation package.

    McCormick concluded in January that Musk engineered the landmark pay package in sham negotiations with directors who were not independent. The compensation package initially carried a potential maximum value of about $56 billion, but that sum has fluctuated over the years based on Tesla’s stock price.

    Following the court ruling, Tesla shareholders met in June and ratified Musk’s 2018 pay package for a second time, again by an overwhelming margin.

    Defense attorneys then argued that the second vote makes clear that Tesla shareholders, with full knowledge of the flaws in the 2018 process that McCormick pointed out, were adamant that Musk is entitled to the pay package. They asked the judge to vacate her order directing Tesla to rescind the pay package.

    McCormick, who seemed skeptical of the defense arguments during an August hearing, said in Monday’s ruling that those arguments were fatally flawed.

    “The large and talented group of defense firms got creative with the ratification argument, but their unprecedented theories go against multiple strains of settled law,” McCormick wrote in a 103-page opinion.

    The judge noted, among other things, that a stockholder vote standing alone cannot ratify a conflicted-controller transaction.

    “Even if a stockholder vote could have a ratifying effect, it could not do so here due to multiple, material misstatements in the proxy statement,” she added.

    Meanwhile, McCormick found that the $5.6 billion fee request by the shareholder’s attorneys, which at one time approached $7 billion based on Tesla’s trading price, went too far.

    “In a case about excessive compensation, that was a bold ask,” McCormick wrote.

    Attorneys for the Tesla shareholder argue that their work resulted in the “massive” benefit of returning shares to Tesla that otherwise would have gone to Musk and diluted the stock held by other Tesla investors. They value that benefit at $51.4 billion, using the difference between the stock price at the time of McCormick’s January ruling and the strike price of some 304 million stock options granted to Musk.

    While finding that the methodology used to calculate the fee request was sound, the judge noted that the Delaware’s Supreme Court has noted that fee award guidelines “must yield to the greater policy concern of preventing windfalls to counsel.”

    “The fee award here must yield in this way, because $5.6 billion is a windfall no matter the methodology used to justify it,” McCormick wrote. A fee award of $345 million, she said, was “an appropriate sum to reward a total victory.”

    The fee award amounts to almost exactly half the current record $688 million in legal fees awarded in 2008 in litigation stemming from the collapse of Enron.

    Source link

  • Judge to hear arguments on whether Google’s advertising tech constitutes a monopoly

    Judge to hear arguments on whether Google’s advertising tech constitutes a monopoly

    ALEXANDRIA, Va. — Google, already facing a possible breakup of the company over its ubiquitous search engine, is fighting to beat back another attack by the U.S. Department of Justice alleging monopolistic conduct, this time over technology that puts online advertising in front of consumers.

    The Justice Department and Google are scheduled to make closing arguments Monday in a trial alleging Google’s advertising technology constitutes an illegal monopoly.

    U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Alexandria, Virginia, will decide the case and is expected to issue a written ruling by the end of the year. If Brinkema finds Google has engaged in illegal, monopolistic conduct, she will then hold further hearings to explore what remedies should be imposed.

    The Justice Department, along with a coalition of states, has already said it believes Google should be forced to sell off its ad tech business, which generates tens of billions of dollars annually for the Mountain View, California-based company.

    After roughly a month of trial testimony earlier this year, the arguments in the case remain the same.

    The Justice Department contends Google built and maintained a monopoly in “open-web display advertising,” essentially the rectangular ads that appear on the top and right-hand side of the page when one browses websites.

    Google dominates all facets of the market: A technology called “DoubleClick” is used pervasively by news sites and other online publishers, while “Google Ads” maintains a cache of advertisers large and small looking to place their ads on the right webpage in front of the right consumer.

    In between is another Google product, AdExchange, that conducts nearly instantaneous auctions matching advertisers to publishers.

    In court papers, Justice Department lawyers say Google “is more concerned with acquiring and preserving its trifecta of monopolies than serving its own publisher and advertiser customers or winning on the merits.”

    As a result, content providers and news organizations have never been able to generate the online revenue they should due to Google’s excessive fees for brokering transactions between advertisers and publishers, the government says.

    Google argues the government’s case improperly focuses on a narrow niche of online advertising. If one looks more broadly at online advertising to include social media, streaming TV services, and app-based advertising, Google says it controls only 25% of the market, a share that is dwindling as it faces increased and evolving competition.

    Google alleges in court papers that the government’s lawsuit “boil(s) down to the persistent complaints of a handful of Google’s rivals and several mammoth publishers.”

    Google also says it has invested billions in technology that facilitates the efficient match of advertisers to interested consumers and it should not be forced to share its technology and success with competitors.

    “Requiring a company to do further engineering work to make its technology and customers accessible by all of its competitors on their preferred terms has never been compelled by U.S. antitrust law,” the company wrote.

    The Virginia case is separate from an ongoing lawsuit brought against Google in the District of Columbia over its namesake search engine. In that case, the judge determined the search engine constitutes an illegal monopoly but has not decided what remedy to impose.

    The Justice Department said last week it will seek to force Google to sell its Chrome Web browser, among a host of other penalties. Google has said the department’s request is overkill and unhinged from legitimate regulation.

    Source link

  • Judge in Alex Jones’ bankruptcy to hear arguments on The Onion’s bid for Infowars

    Judge in Alex Jones’ bankruptcy to hear arguments on The Onion’s bid for Infowars

    A bankruptcy judge is set to hear arguments Monday in conspiracy theorist Alex Jones ’ effort to stop the satirical news outlet The Onion from buying Infowars and turning it into a parody.

    Jones alleges fraud and collusion marred the bankruptcy auction in which The Onion was named the winning bidder on Nov. 14 over a company affiliated with him.

    It’s not clear how soon U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Lopez in Houston will issue a ruling. He could allow The Onion to move forward with the sale, order a new auction or name the other bidder as the winner. At stake is whether Jones gets to stay at Infowars’ studio in Austin, Texas, under a new owner friendly to him, or whether he gets kicked out by The Onion.

    The other bidder, First United American Companies, runs a website in Jones’ name that sells nutritional supplements.

    Regardless, Jones has set up a new studio, websites and social media accounts that would allow him keep airing his show. And his personal account with 3.3 million followers on the social platform X was not part of the sale, although Lopez will be deciding whether it should be included in the liquidation and sold off later.

    Jones’ bankruptcy and the liquidation of his assets came about after he was ordered to pay nearly $1.5 billion to relatives of victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. Jones was found liable for defamation and emotional distress damages in lawsuits in Connecticut and Texas for repeatedly calling the 2012 shooting that killed 20 first graders and six educators a hoax staged by actors to increase gun control.

    Proceeds from the liquidation are to go to Jones creditors, including the Sandy Hook families who sued him.

    Jones alleged The Onion’s bid was the result of fraud and collusion involving many of those families, the humor site and a court-appointed trustee who is overseeing the liquidation.

    First United American Companies submitted a $3.5 million sealed bid, while The Onion offered $1.75 million in cash. But The Onion’s bid also included a pledge by Sandy Hook families to forgo some or all of the auction proceeds due to them to give other creditors a total of $100,000 more than they would receive under other bids.

    The trustee, Christopher Murray, said that made The Onion’s proposal better for creditors and he named it the winning bid. He has denied any wrongdoing.

    Jones and First United American Companies claimed that the bid violated Lopez’s rules for the auction by including multiple entities and lacking a valid dollar amount. Jones also alleged Murray improperly canceled an expected round of live bidding and only selected among the sealed bids that were submitted.

    Jones called the auction “rigged” and a “fraud” on his show, which airs on the Infowars website, radio stations and Jones’ X account.

    In a court filing, Murray called the allegations “a disappointed bidder’s improper attempt to influence an otherwise fair and open auction process.”

    Lopez’s September order on the auction procedures made a live bidding round optional. And it gave broad authority to Murray to conduct the sale, including the power to reject any bid, no matter how high, that was “contrary to the best interests” of Jones, his company and their creditors.

    But at a Nov. 14 hearing Lopez said he was concerned about the process and transparency.

    “We’re all going to an evidentiary hearing and I’m going to figure out exactly what happened,” he said. “No one should feel comfortable with the results of this auction.”

    The assets of Infowars’ parent company, Free Speech Systems, that were up for sale included the Austin studio, Infowars’ video archive, video production equipment, product trademarks, and Infowars’ websites and social media accounts.

    Jones is appealing the $1.5 billion in judgments citing free speech rights, but has acknowledged that the school shooting happened.

    Jones has brought in millions of dollars a year in revenue by hawking nutritional supplements, clothing, survival gear and other merchandise — including more than $22 million this year through Sept. 30 from his Infowars Store website, according to court documents.

    Many of Jones’ personal assets, including real estate as well as guns and other personal belongings, also are being sold as part of the bankruptcy.

    Documents filed in court earlier this year said Jones has about $9 million in personal assets, while Free Speech Systems had about $6 million in cash and more than $1 million worth of inventory.

    Source link

  • Steph Houghton spoke from the heart – why have people been so quick to judge or condemn?

    Steph Houghton spoke from the heart – why have people been so quick to judge or condemn?

    It feels like we’ve seen more of Steph Houghton since she’s retired. Not literally — although maybe her burgeoning media career means she is more visible to rival fans who would only glimpse her twice a season — but in a deeper, more human sense.

    Houghton’s interactions with the media were always cordial and insightful, but you got the sense there was more under the surface.

    In recent months, Houghton has emerged from her shell to become a more candid, forthright voice. Consequently, it’s easier to glimpse the leader who not only represented Manchester City and England with distinction but transformed the women’s game along the way.

    Even more so in her memoir, Leading From The Back: My Journey to the Top of Women’s Football, out this week. In it, Houghton lays bare her role as off-field leader, chiefly in her negotiations with the Football Association over contracts and bonuses.

    Houghton’s England teams had it better than their predecessors but did not have the luxury, for instance, of direct or business class flights home from the World Cup in Canada in 2015, where they won bronze. They played in the Women’s Super League (WSL) four days later. The most moving chapters are on Houghton’s husband, the former footballer Stephen Darby, and his 2018 motor neurone disease diagnosis, of plans derailed and a player forced to choose between family and football.

    go-deeper

    There is doubtless a vulnerability and discomfort in drawing back the curtain, if a catharsis, too. As Houghton put it to Ian Wright on Crossways, their shared podcast, she wanted the book to be raw and real. “Sometimes people just see us as footballers, but there’s a lot more going on behind the scenes,” she said.

    This brings us to Houghton’s interview with the Guardian about the end of her England career — and, moreover, the backlash. Those who felt Houghton had spoken out of turn, and came across as entitled or bitter, were quick to let her know. (I wonder how many are newer fans of the women’s game and, unfamiliar with her career, have only ever seen Houghton in this light.)

    Houghton had received a similar response to a Daily Mail interview before the 2023 World Cup. She detailed the pressure she had put on herself and how hard it had been to justify that dedication when Darby had fallen at home and been rushed to hospital while she was on the bench for a game at Aston Villa.

    Houghton’s response on Friday’s podcast was to hope that people would read her feelings in their full context, in her book. Only then will they truly understand her side of the story.

    I have read it. I don’t think she came across as entitled or bitter. Rather, as Houghton told of the demise of her England career, all that came through was sadness. Houghton played her final game for England against the Republic of Ireland in a behind-closed-doors match at St George’s Park. Compare that to Jill Scott and Ellen White’s final bows for England: winning the European Championship against Germany at Wembley.

    Houghton was thrilled for them but inevitably wished she was among them. She did, at least, get a send-off at Wembley last month, leading the team out one final time, against Germany, in what might have felt like a facsimile of the Euros final — the alternate universe where Houghton has one last run of sold-out games.


    Steph Houghton with the England team before their game against Germany at Wembley last month (Marc Atkins/Getty Images)

    Houghton details the rehab programme for a torn Achilles that she undertook with England’s blessing — she recorded 10-hour days visiting a physio in Crewe — and says all parties had understood all along that she wouldn’t play for her club before the Euros in 2022. England checked in every six weeks. She made the provisional squad of 30 for the tournament. In the end, manager Sarina Wiegman’s view was that Houghton had not played enough games; the player’s view was that they knew this would be the case.

    Houghton recalls her tears when she takes the phone call from Wiegman in which she learns she will no longer be England captain. “I was upset that I’d found out over the phone,” she writes. “For me, that’s a face-to-face conversation.”

    I don’t disagree. Houghton never had anything against her successor Leah Williamson but was heartbroken that “the best thing (she) ever had a chance to do” was ending after eight years.

    World Cup rejection hits her less hard but is still painful. She felt she had done all Wiegman asked: playing regularly for her club, winning against Chelsea and Arsenal. Wiegman offers a tactical assessment and adds that she doesn’t feel she can take anyone out of the squad for Houghton. Houghton feels like Wiegman has moved the goalposts. Wiegman delivers this news at St George’s Park, where Houghton, allegedly unbeknownst to Wiegman, had been working with Nike. There, Houghton is told she will probably never play for England while Wiegman is in charge.

    “I also found myself wondering if this would have been a face-to-face conversation if I hadn’t already been at St George’s,” Houghton concludes. “The problem was more that I think she’d intended to have this conversation over the phone, and she knew she was going to tell me I wasn’t in her plans at all. I thought that called for a face-to-face conversation given the career I’d had.”

    Suffice to say it is, as Houghton promised, a little more complex than some responses would have you believe.

    go-deeper

    This column isn’t about whether you would have taken Houghton to either of those tournaments or about Wiegman’s alleged handling of it all. It is about the reaction to Houghton’s pain, and the expectation we have of female footballers to expose all their vulnerabilities when the audience is not prepared to meet them with empathy.

    Why does everyone find it so hard to acknowledge that Houghton was in pain — and understandably so? Her last notable act for England at a major tournament was missing a penalty against the U.S. in the semi-final of the 2019 World Cup. All of it — from the injury to missing out on the Lionesses’ first major trophy — will have triggered complex emotions in a player whose 121 caps were won in such a critical period for women’s football. That is before you examine how Houghton’s personal circumstances make the stakes, in that area of her life, so much higher.

    Of late, women’s football has seemed to steep itself in the idea that the sport moves forward when we hear of players’ pain in full. No varnish, no euphemisms: tell us of every horror of your rehabilitation from your anterior cruciate ligament injury, so that we can understand and make change. Tell us of your mental health struggles and your relationships — in which fans are invested — to inspire those watching. Tell us, Houghton, of what really happened with England, because after all this time, we want to know.

    Many players, from the WSL’s record goalscorer Vivianne Miedema to the two-time FIFA Best women’s goalkeeper Mary Earps, have been met with understanding for expressing their vulnerabilities. Why not Houghton here?

    Is it personal? The criticism of Houghton always seems to have a different kind of fire behind it — is it that her replacement was the hugely popular Williamson, so among a newer, younger, more chronically online fanbase, it is convenient to cast Houghton as a villain? On some level do we still expect sportswomen to be compliant, grateful, and magnanimous when it comes to team selection and tactics? Or simply that the minute those feelings become complex or unpalatable — too much light and shade to fit in a tweet — people don’t want to hear them? That people can’t separate a divisive subject like team selection from the human at the centre of it all?

    I don’t know, but many women’s football fans approached Houghton’s comments — and the end of her England career — with a lack of respect and understanding. Sportspeople, in particular, have devoted their lives to pushing themselves to lengths most of us would rather not, but surely most of us would have felt the same in Houghton’s position. Add in the extraordinary choices she had to make and I’m not sure how many of us would have even had it in us to keep chasing major tournaments.

    We should, as a minimum, allow Houghton to give voice to her experience without being so quick to judge, dismiss or condemn.

    Sport is a fundamentally human thing. You don’t have to agree with Houghton, but she’s allowed to say all this: allowed to say that it hurt and allowed to say that she wishes it all could have been different. At least let her speak. Given the ending, and the scale of her contribution, she deserves that.

    (Top photo: Jacques Feeney/Offside/Offside via Getty Images)



    Source link

  • Latest lifestyle News, Live Updates Today October 30, 2024: Kriti Sanon says she doesn’t judge anyone for getting Botox but one has to live with even bad results

    Latest lifestyle News, Live Updates Today October 30, 2024: Kriti Sanon says she doesn’t judge anyone for getting Botox but one has to live with even bad results

    Live

    Stay informed with Hindustan Times’ live updates! Track the latest lifestyle news including fashion trends, style guide & Tips, India & World Events. Don’t miss today’s key news for October 30, 2024.

    Latest news on October 30, 2024: Kriti Sanon opened up about botox treatments, how pressure of looking good impacts young girls, and more.

    Latest news on October 30, 2024: Kriti Sanon opened up about botox treatments, how pressure of looking good impacts young girls, and more.

    Get the latest news updates and breaking news stories from the world of lifestyle. Track all the latest fashion trends, delicious recipes, travel tips and more. Disclaimer: This is an AI-generated live blog and has not been edited by Hindustan Times staff.…Read More

    Follow all the updates here:

    Oct 30, 2024 10:39 AM IST

    Fashion News LIVE: Kriti Sanon says she doesn’t judge anyone for getting Botox but one has to live with even bad results

    • Kriti Sanon opened up about how the pressure of getting Botox impacts young girls, how she doesn’t judge people for getting cosmetic surgery, and more.


    Read the full story here

    Oct 30, 2024 10:36 AM IST

    Fashion News LIVE: Best Myntra Diwali Sale Dhamaka Offers: Deals on perfumes with up to 70% off on Beardo, Mast & Harbour, and more

    • Uncover the Best Myntra Diwali Sale Dhamaka Offers on Perfumes with up to 70% off on luxury brands like Beardo, Mast & Harbour, and Carlton London!


    Read the full story here

    Oct 30, 2024 9:22 AM IST

    Fashion News LIVE: Karan Johar’s American Psycho shirt is actually quite budget-friendly. Guess its price

    • Karan Johar wore an eye-catching kurta shirt featuring an American Psycho print, for an outing. The outfit is quite affordable. Find out its price.


    Read the full story here

    Oct 30, 2024 8:35 AM IST

    Fashion News LIVE: Upgrade your Diwali wardrobe: 5 fashion-forward alternatives to classic kurta pyjama for men

    • As Diwali approaches, it’s time for men to elevate their festive style. While classic kurta pyjama is a staple, here are some trendy alternatives you must try.


    Read the full story here

    Oct 30, 2024 8:31 AM IST

    Fashion News LIVE: Natasa Stankovic-Jacqueline Fernandez’s in ethnic looks to Varun Dhawan in denim fit attend Diwali bash: Who wore what

    • Natasa Stankovic, Jacqueline Fernandez, Varun Dhawan and others attended Anshul Garg’s Diwali bash last night. Check out what the stars wore.


    Read the full story here

    Oct 30, 2024 8:00 AM IST

    Art and Culture News LIVE: Is TV’s next sure-fire hit, “Disclaimer”, a must-watch or a dud?

    Oct 30, 2024 7:30 AM IST

    Festivals News LIVE: Diwali 2024 travel special: Ayodhya to Amritsar, best places to visit in India during the festival of lights

    • Diwali 2024 travel special: Experience the magic of Diwali across India, from Ayodhya’s grand scale celebrations to Amritsar’s spiritual energy.


    Read the full story here

    Source link