adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

Media

Judge refuses to dismiss media charges in Pell trial – CTV News

Published

 on


MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA —
A Supreme Court judge in Australia’s Victoria state on Friday dismissed submissions from news media organizations and journalists that there is no case to answer on charges they breached a gag order on reporting about Cardinal George Pell’s sex abuse convictions in 2018.

More charges were tossed out in the case against Australian media outlets prosecuted over reporting of Pell’s abuse convictions. But the judge refused to throw out the bulk of the 87 charges of contempt of court for stories published after the cardinal’s guilty verdict.

His child sexual abuse convictions were overturned by Australia’s High Court earlier this year and the cardinal is back in Rome.

300x250x1

More than two dozen media organizations, reporters and editors were charged with breaching of suppression orders and other reporting rules in the days following the guilty verdicts.

In a mid-trial ruling on Friday, Justice John Dixon dismissed eight contempt charges against Nationwide News, Sydney radio station 2GB, Queensland Newspapers and the Nine Entertainment-owned Fairfax Media.

But he rejected arguments by 27 media outlets, journalists and editors that they had no case to answer for the remaining 79 charges.

Prosecutors last month dropped 13 charges against News Corp. staff and publications. The trial is scheduled to resume on Jan. 28.

Such suppression orders are common in the Australian and British judicial systems. But the enormous international interest in an Australian criminal trial with global ramifications highlighted the difficulty in enforcing such orders in the digital age.

Pell was convicted on Dec. 11, 2018 of sexually abusing two choirboys in a Melbourne cathedral when he was the city’s archbishop in the late 1990s.

The trial of Pope Francis’ former finance minister and the most senior Catholic to be charged with child sex abuse was not reported in the news media because of the suppression order that forbade publication of details in any format that could be accessed from Australia.

Details were suppressed to prevent prejudicing jurors in a second child abuse trial that Pell was to face three months later.

That second trial was cancelled due to a lack of evidence, and Australia’s High Court in April overturned all convictions after Pell had spent 13 months in prison.

No foreign news organization has been charged with breaching the suppression order. The U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment would prevent such censorship in the United States, so attempting to extradite an American for breaching an Australian suppression order would be futile.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Media

Struggling Sports Illustrated inks deal to stay afloat following partnership – NBC News

Published

 on


The owner of Sports Illustrated came to an agreement with digital media company Minute Media, officials said Monday, to operate the iconic magazine, two months after mass layoffs appeared to signal the publication’s demise.

Authentic Brands, which also owns a host of clothing and lifestyle brands, purchased the sports magazine in 2019; it had been operated in recent years by publishers at The Arena Group.

Then in late January, Authentic Brands said it had terminated The Arena Group’s publishing license, leading to widespread staffing cuts.

300x250x1

Minute Media, best known for The Players’ Tribune and FanSided, said it’s reached a deal with Authentic to keep Sports Illustrated going.

“Minute Media will oversee all digital and print editorial operations across the SI portfoliowhich has been the industry leader in dedicated sports journalism for decades,” Minute Media said in a statement.

“Minute Media plans to leverage its premium sports content expertise as well as its technology platform that powers the creation, global distribution and monetization of hundreds of digital content brands, to continue to grow the Sports Illustrated media business.”

The magazine suffered a reputation blow late last year when it was disclosed that stories written by an artificial intelligence tool had been published.

“In Minute Media we have found a partner that will honor SI’s lauded legacy and exceed fan expectations for the future,” Authentic Executive Vice Chairman Daniel W. Dienst said in a statement.

“As Minute Media shepherds the SI brand across a rapidly evolving media landscape, our priority at Authentic is — and has always been — to protect its journalistic integrity and longevity.”

The agreement also included Authentic buying an undisclosed amount of equity in Minute Media.

Asaf Peled, the CEO and founder of Minute Media, called Sports Illustrated the “gold standard for sports journalism and has been for nearly 70 years.”

“The weight and power of that distinction cannot be understated,” Peled added. “At Minute Media, our focus will be to take that legacy into new, emerging channels enhancing visibility, commercial viability and sustainable impact, all while ensuring that the SI team is inspired to flourish in this new era of media.”

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Media

Minute Media will publish Sports Illustrated – The Washington Post – The Washington Post

Published

 on


Sports Illustrated has found a new publisher, the company’s owner announced Monday, ending months of uncertainty over who would operate the storied sports publication. The new publisher is Minute Media, a London-based digital media company that publishes a number of websites including the Players’ Tribune.

Minute Media takes over publishing Sports Illustrated from the Arena Group, which held those rights for five years and lurched from controversy to controversy, including several rounds of layoffs, publishing product reviews written by artificial intelligence and, earlier this year, laying off the entire unionized workforce of SI.

Minute Media is not acquiring SI but rather licensing the publishing rights from SI’s owner, Authentic Brands Group, a brand ownership firm that owns the intellectual property of celebrities like Elvis and Shaquille O’Neal. Minute Media will now decide the fates of around 80 staffers as it charts a path forward for SI. A spokesperson for Minute Media said the company would meet with SI leadership in the coming weeks to determine which staffers will be offered employment with Minute Media.

300x250x1

Dan Dienst, Authentic’s Executive Vice Chairman, Tactical Ops, said in a statement: “In Minute Media we have found a partner that will honor SI’s lauded legacy and exceed fan expectations for the future. As Minute Media shepherds the SI brand across a rapidly evolving media landscape, our priority at Authentic is – and has always been – to protect its journalistic integrity and longevity.”

A new publisher could help stabilize SI after several tumultuous months, multiple staffers told the Post. In January, the Arena Group missed a scheduled payment to Authentic, part of the licensing fee it paid to publish SI. Authentic responded by revoking the publishing license and Arena issued layoff notices to all of the unionized staff. Their last days were scheduled to be at the end of April.

While staffers have awaited their fates, Authentic has spent the last several months negotiating a new publishing license. The company’s CEO, Jamie Salter, told the Post last month he was considering four proposals, including continuing its partnership with Arena. But that became increasingly untenable because of the deterioration of the relationship between Authentic and Arena’s largest shareholder, Manoj Bhargava, the founder of 5-Hour Energy. An Arena executive killed a print story about transgender boxing policy, and threatened recently to end print publication of the magazine only to immediately reverse course on that threat.

“We have said from the start that our top priorities are to keep Sports Illustrated alive, uphold the legacy of the institution and protect our union jobs. We look forward to discussing a future with Minute Media that does that,” said Emma Baccellieri, staff writer for SI and vice chair for the SI Union, in a statement released by the NewsGuild.

Sports Illustrated Editor-in-Chief Steve Cannella emailed staffers Monday morning. “I know we all have a lot of questions — I wish I had more to share with you right now,” he wrote, adding, “I’m sure we will get a chance to meet with the Minute Media team as soon as possible.”

The licensing deal is for 10 years, with an option for an additional 20. It includes the rights to publish Sports Illustrated in print and online, as well as Sports Illustrated Swimsuit, and Sports Illustrated Kids. As part of the deal, Authentic will also acquire an equity stake in Minute Media.

The New York Times first reported the agreement.

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Media

Supreme Court leans against limiting Biden administration contacts with social media platforms

Published

 on

WASHINGTON — A majority of Supreme Court justices on Monday appeared highly skeptical about claims the Biden administration crossed the line from persuasion to coercion when it told social media platforms to remove problematic content.

At issue is an injunction imposed by a federal judge, currently on hold, that would limit contacts between government officials and social media companies on a wide range of issues.

During oral arguments, justices across the ideological spectrum questioned whether the conduct of government officials was unlawful and whether plaintiffs that brought the lawsuit could even show they were directly harmed. Among the issues raised was the lack of evidence that government officials threatened punitive action if the social media companies failed to cooperate.

The case was one of two the court heard on Monday about the practice known as “jawboning,” in which the government leans on private parties to do what it wants, sometimes with the implicit threat of adverse consequences if demands are not met. Those challenging the government actions say that in each case there was a violation of the Constitution’s First Amendment, which protects free speech rights.

300x250x1

The second case involves claims that a New York state official inappropriately pressured companies to end ties with the National Rifle Association, the leading gun rights group.

In the social media case, Republican attorneys general in Louisiana and Missouri, along with five social media users, filed the underlying lawsuit alleging that U.S. government officials went too far in putting pressure on platforms to moderate content. The individual plaintiffs include Covid lockdown opponents and Jim Hoft, the owner of the right-wing website Gateway Pundit.

The Facebook logo reflected in a puddle at the company's headquarters in Menlo Park, Calif., on Oct. 25, 2021.
The Facebook logo reflected in a puddle at the company’s headquarters in Menlo Park, Calif., on Oct. 25, 2021.David Paul Morris / Bloomberg via Getty Images file

The lawsuit makes various claims relating to activities that occurred in 2020 and before, including efforts to deter the spread of false information about Covid and the presidential election. Donald Trump was president at the time, but the district court ruling focused on actions taken by the government after President Joe Biden took office in January 2021.

Several justices questioned whether the nature of the communications was problematic, with liberal Justice Elena Kagan noting that officials sometimes have fraught communications with journalists.

“This happens literally thousands of times a day in the federal government,” she said.

Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative, similarly pointed out that the federal government is “not monolithic,” meaning that a complaint from one department is not necessarily a sign that another agency would take action if a post was not removed.

“That has to dilute the concept of coercion significantly doesn’t it?” he said.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, another conservative, indicated that the argument made by Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga that mere encouragement by the government could constitute unlawful conduct “would sweep in an awful lot” of routine activity.

Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked Aguiñaga whether, under his interpretation of the law, it could be potentially unlawful for the government to ask social media platforms to take down a viral post encouraging teens to jump out of windows.

“Is it your view that the government authorities could not declare those circumstances a public emergency and encourage social media platforms to take down the information that is instigating this problem?” she said.

Aguiñaga said the government’s conduct could cross the line if it goes beyond expressing concerns about content and then asks for posts to be removed.

Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh also appeared skeptical of the plaintiffs’ arguments that there was coercion involved.

“What do you do with the fact that the platforms say no all the time to the government?” he said.

The justice who appeared most sympathetic to the plaintiffs was conservative Samuel Alito.

The evidence showed that White House officials and others suggested they were on the “same team” as the social media companies, demanded answers and “cursed them out” when they did not get the responses they wanted, Alito said.

“There is constant pestering of Facebook and some of the other platforms,” he added.

Alito also referred to reporters present in the courtroom.

“I cannot imagine federal officials taking that approach to the print media representatives over there. If you did that to them, what do you think the reaction would be?” he said.

Last July, Louisiana-based Judge Terry Doughty barred officials from “communication of any kind with social-media companies urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech.”

The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals narrowed the scope of Doughty’s injunction. But the appeals court still required the White House, the FBI and top health officials not to “coerce or significantly encourage” social media companies to remove content the Biden administration considers misinformation.

When agreeing to hear the case, the Supreme Court in October blocked the appeals court ruling, with three conservative justices — Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch — noting they disagreed with that decision.

In the NRA case, the gun rights group claims that its free speech rights were violated by the actions of Maria Vullo, then-superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services.

Based questions asked during those oral arguments, the court could find that Vullo inappropriately pressured insurance companies to end their business relationships with NRA.

Vullo’s office had been investigating insurance companies that the NRA had worked with to provide coverage for members. The NRA alleged that Vullo, in meetings with insurance companies, made “back channel threats that they cease providing services to the NRA.”

Speaking out after the 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida, in which 17 people were killed, Vullo also urged insurance companies and banks to reconsider any relationships they had with gun rights-affiliated groups.

Alito indicated that the only difference between the two cases is that Vullo was not subtle enough in her interactions with the companies.

“Does that mean that really the New York officials could have achieved what they wanted to achieve if they hadn’t done it in such a ham-handed manner?” he asked.

Another key distinction between the two cases is that the Biden administration, while defending its own conduct in the social media cases, filed a brief mostly backing the NRA in the other case, saying it had made a plausible free speech allegation.

Justice Department lawyer Ephraim McDowell told the justices that in the NRA case there was a “specific coercive threat” that was not present in the social media case.

The NRA is appealing a 2022 ruling by the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which said Vullo’s actions did not constitute unlawful conduct.

Vullo argued in her defense that it was part of her job to warn companies about the “reputational risk” of doing business with the NRA.

The case attracted additional attention after the American Civil Liberties Union, which often backs liberal causes, signed on to represent the NRA. The ACLU said that while it disagrees with the NRA’s positions, it would defend the gun rights group’s right to speak.

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Trending