Craigslist shuts down its controversial adult services site for good but warned its users would simply move elsewhere. – The popular online marketplace Craigslist officially announced it
would be permanently shutting down its adult services section after
forceful pressure from U.S. Attorneys General and conservative
organizations. William Clinton Powell, director of customer service and
law enforcement relations a…
Prime Minister Mirko Cvetković and Russian Ambassador Alexander Konuzin officially opened works on the Serbian section of the South Stream gas pipeline. The section in question is the Niš-Leskovac-Vranje part (MG-11) of the pipeline.
Live Internet TV | Online TV technology allows you to watch over 4,500 HD channels right on your PC.
Live Internet TV | Online TV technology allows you to watch over 4,500 HD channels right on your PC.
Two explosions occurred in the military section of the Sloboda weapons production company in ÄŒaÄak, central Serbia, according to Beta news agency. One worker has been seriously injured, according to reports.
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on Monday launched the first section of the Eastern Siberia-Pacific Ocean (ESPO) pipeline. “It is an important event for Russia. It is a strategic project, which enables (Russia) to enter new markets in the Asia-Pacific region,” Putin said at the launching ceremony held at an oil terminal in the port of Kozmino near the Pacific city of Vladivostok.
Legislation seeks to permanently exempt small businesses from the reporting requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Bill sponsor Rep. Scott Garrett says Section 404 creates an undue burden on small businesses.
– The Small Business SOX
Compliance Relief Act was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives Oct. 8 to permanently exempt small businesses
from Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Section
404 contains internal reporting requirements that many small businesses
complain are costl…
At night a few red flashes lit up a bit of the Malecon, just where the guards’ whistles warned that no one could sit….
A new study, conducted by Mayo Clinic researchers, has shown that kids exposed to anesthesia during Cesarean section are not at any higher risk for learning disabilities later in life than children not delivered by C-section.
“We found that the incidence of learning disabilities was equal between children who were delivered vaginally and those who [...]
Sign flashing human rights messages at the US interests section in Havana goes blank
It was smuggled through the US diplomatic pouch, secretly installed across the facade of a building overlooking Havana and given a very specific mission: to annoy Fidel Castro.
The scrolling electronic sign, a low-tech version of New York’s Time Square ticker, escalated the US’s propaganda war with Cuba’s leader three years ago by flashing human rights messages in five-foot high crimson letters. But history, or more specifically Barack Obama, appears to have pulled the plug on the billboard which flitted across 25 windows of the US interests section in Havana. The screen has gone blank – the latest indication that half a century of enmity may be winding down.
The ticker, erected by the Bush administration in January 2006, infuriated Castro and provoked tit-for-tat diplomatic jousting which further strained relations.
“It was basically a contest of which side could annoy the other the most,” said Dan Erikson, author The Cuba Wars and an analyst at the Inter-American Dialogue thinktank. “The US described [the sign] as a way to convey information to the Cuban people but the real purpose was to irritate the Cuban government.”
It ran quotes from Martin Luther King (“I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up”) and Abraham Lincoln (“No man is good enough to govern another man without that other’s consent”) as well as the likes of Lech Walesa.
It also blamed the island’s transport crisis and material privations on the communist authorities: “Some go around in Mercedes, some in Ladas, but the system forces almost everyone to hitch rides.” Bush officials said the ticker was a way to circumvent censorship and convey hope and liberty to a tropical gulag.
Castro said it was another assault on Cuba’s sovereignty by a hypocritical imperialist bully. Soon after it appeared he marched a million people past in protest, dug up the US mission’s car park and erected anti-US billboards and 138 huge black flags to commemorate “victims of US aggression” – and block the ticker.
The revolutionary leader said there would be no contact between Havana-based US diplomats and Cuba’s foreign ministry until the sign came down. Since then he has fallen ill and been succeeded as president by his brother, Raul, and Bush has been replaced by a Democrat who has spoken of a new start with the Caribbean island 90 miles off Florida.
After Obama’s election the Cuban government expressed a desire to normalise relations and took down its billboards around the US mission, though the flags remained. In recent months the White House lifted restrictions on remittances and travel for Cuban-Americans – a slight easing of the Kennedy-era economic embargo – and resumed talks with Havana over migration and disaster preparedness. The ticker disappeared several weeks ago but was reported only today. US diplomats told visitors there were “technical difficulties” and that there were no plans to switch it back soon, according to Reuters.
There is speculation that US and Cuban officials in Havana have resumed contact. The US state department and Cuban foreign ministry did not immediately respond to requests seeking comment.
The ticker made little visible impact on Cubans but became a tourist attraction. Cumbersome technology, however, diminished its impact. The sign was slow-moving, difficult to read and lacked Spanish accents and tildes.
For instance “año”, which means year, appeared as “ano”, which means anus.
The Guardian newspaper recently wrote about Belgrade in its travel section. The story says that Belgrade is “defiantly No. 1 when it comes to clubbing†and recommends that people visit.
Art magazine Wound is introducing an iPhone version of its summer issue to complement the print and online versions. The iWound app [iTunes link], which costs you $4.99, contains 402 pages of original content, 15 minutes of audio and video and several features.
The central theme of wound for summer 2009 is ‘la grande illusion’. The [...]
• Civil rights activists say new law curbs free speech
• Rules could allow officials to raid private homes
The government was accused tonight of giving itself draconian powers to clamp down on protests at the 2012 Olympics. Critics said the powers were so broad they would potentially give private contractors the right to forcibly enter people’s homes and seize materials.
Opposition parties and civil liberties groups criticised the powers as top security officials announced plans concerned with keeping the games, to be held mostly in London, safe from terrorist attack and from “domestic extremists” and public order problems like disruptive protests.
The legislation is directed at curbing advertising near the Olympic venues. A government spokesperson said the laws, passed in 2006, were meant to stop “over-commercialisation” of the games.
But civil rights campaigners are worried about several clauses in the London Olympic Games and Games Act 2006. Section 19(4) could cover protest placards, they said, as it read: “The regulations may apply in respect of advertising of any kind including in particular – (a) advertising of a non-commercial nature, and (b) announcements or notices of any kind.”
Section 22 allows a “constable or enforcement officer” to “enter land or premises” where they believe such an advert is being shown or produced. It allows for materials to be destroyed, and for the use of “reasonable force”. The power to force entry requires a court warrant. Causing still further concern is a section granting the powers to an enforcement officer appointed by Olympic Delivery Authority.
Anita Coles, policy officer for Liberty, said: “This goes much further than protecting the Olympic logo for commercial use. Regulations could ban signs urging boycotts of sponsors with sweat shops. Then private contractors designated by the Olympic authority could enter homes and other premises in the vicinity, seizing or destroying private property.”
The Liberal Democrats’ home affairs spokesman, Chris Huhne, said: “This sort of police action runs the risk of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The police should take a deep breath and read the excellent report from the chief inspector of constabulary on the tolerance of protest. We should aim to show the Chinese that you can run a successful Olympics without cracking down on protesters and free speech.”
Chris Grayling, the shadow home secretary, said: “This is a government who just doesn’t understand civil liberties – they may claim these powers won’t be used but the frank truth is no one will believe them. Neither the police nor any other official should be invading people’s homes for what appear to be commercial reasons.”
A senior government security official said the powers would not be used to suppress protests or political placards. And the assistant commissioner, Chris Alison, in charge of the policing of the 2012 Olympics, said: “We are not going into people’s houses to stop people protesting.”
But Peter McNeil, who opposes the staging of equestrian events in Greenwich park, told BBC London: “This is dreadful. It’s bullying taken to another level.”
A spokesperson for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport said the legal provisions on games advertising were meant to “prevent ambush marketing – not prevent or restrict lawful protests”.
As long as pabloquema isn’t plotting the Queen’s death, Anna Fairclough is confident he can avoid prosecution for treason
pabloquema asks:
As a subject of the British crown, how do I call for the abolition of the monarchy without risking the noose?
To keep this reply reasonably short, I am going to assume that you are not actually advocating or plotting the Queen’s death, which could amount to treason, carrying a penalty of life imprisonment (in addition to the penalties for any other offences you may commit).
Probably more to the point is section 3a of the Treason Felony Act 1848, which makes it an offence for any person (British subject or not) to call for the abolition of the monarchy. The wording of the act is as follows:
. . . If any person whatsoever shall, within the United Kingdom or without, compass, imagine, invent, devise, or intend to deprive or depose our Most Gracious Lady the Queen, . . . from the style, honour, or royal name of the imperial crown of the United Kingdom, or of any other of her Majesty’s dominions and countries, or to levy war against her Majesty, . . . within any part of the United Kingdom, in order by force or constraint to compel her . . . to change her . . . measures or counsels, or in order to put any force or constraint upon or in order to intimidate or overawe both houses or either house of parliament, or to move or stir any foreigner or stranger with force to invade the United Kingdom or any other of her Majesty’s dominions or countries under the obeisance of her Majesty, . . . and such compassings, imaginations, inventions, devices, or intentions, or any of them, shall express, utter, or declare, by publishing any printing or writing, . . . or by any overt act or deed, every person so offending shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, . . . to be transported beyond the seas for the term of his or her natural life . . .
The section can be explained in reasonably plain English as prohibiting:
1. compassing (contriving) etc generally; and
2. compassing (contriving) by publication, in order:
(a) to deprive the monarch of the Crown; or
(b) to levy war against the monarch; or
(c) to encourage foreigners to invade the UK.
It remains an open question whether calling for abolition of the monarchy by peaceful means would fall foul of (a) above, or whether only those calling for abolition by the use of force would be caught. That question came before the House of Lords in a 2003 case brought by the Guardian’s editor Regina v Her Majesty’s Attorney General (Appellant) ex parte Rusbridger and another (Respondents) but the Lords declined to decide it because, since no prosecutions under section 3 have been brought since 1883, and none were threatened, the court felt that the question was purely theoretical, and it was not the function of the courts to bring the statute book up to date.
Section 3 above would certainly appear to prohibit peaceful political debate on the virtues of republicanism. Whilst refusing to decide the point, Lord Steyn in the Rusbridger case explained that “The part of s3 of the 1848 act which appears to criminalise the advocacy of republicanism is a relic of a bygone age and does not fit into the fabric of our modern legal system. The idea that s3 could survive scrutiny under [the Human Rights Act 1998] is unreal”. If such a case were ever to be prosecuted, then, it is very likely that section 3 of the 1848 act would be reinterpreted using the Human Rights Act 1998 so as to give proper weight to the rights protected by article 10: the right to freedom of expression.
Article 10 is not an absolute right, so interferences with freedom of speech can be justified provided they meet the criteria laid down in article 10(2). Broadly, this means that interferences need to be governed by a clear and accessible law; pursue one of the legitimate aims listed in 10(2) (such as national security, public safety, the prevention of disorder or crime, the protection of health or morals, the protection of the reputation or rights of others); and be proportionate to the aim pursued.
A comparison might be drawn with the fairly recent case of R (on the application of Green) v City of Westminster Magistrates Court (2007) in which a Christian group sought unsuccessfully to bring a private prosecution for blasphemous libel – another archaic offence – against the BBC and the production company of Jerry Springer – the opera. The court considered whether the existence of the offence of blasphemy breached article 10, and decided that it did not, but only because blasphemy should be understood to be criminal only “if what is done or said is such as to induce a reasonable reaction involving civil strife, damage to the fabric of society or their equivalent.” It would not be enough to show that “some people of particular sensibility are, because deeply offended, moved to protest.” Rather, “what is necessary to make such material a crime is that the community (or society) generally should be threatened.” The test here is set so high that it is hard to envisage what behaviour would be criminal – and the offence of blasphemous libel was in any event promptly repealed following this case.
Finally, you might be relieved to see from the wording of the section above that the penalty for calling for the abolition of the monarchy is not the noose, but merely being transported beyond the seas for the remainder of your natural life. Whilst that might not sound so bad, unfortunately successive legislative changes mean that the penalty would now be life imprisonment. Even if it were the noose, you could rely on the Human Rights Act again, because, by incorporating article one of the thirteenth protocol, the death penalty is prohibited in the UK.
So to sum up: if you are unlucky enough to be the first person prosecuted for calling for the abolition of the monarchy since 1883, you could argue that your prosecution breaches your right to freedom of expression, and if your campaign is peaceful you are virtually certain to succeed. If youadvocate the use of violence, or some particularly heinous means of deposing Her Majesty, you might face more difficulty as well as potentially committing other offences at the same time, including sedition (vilifying or degrading the Queen with intent to cause violence). Whatever happens, you won’t face the noose.
Do you have a civil liberties or human rights question for the Liberty lawyers? Post it in our Liberty Clinic open thread.
• David Beckham had to be held back by security staff
• Midfielder says he ‘tried to shake one of the guy’s hands’
David Beckham was involved in an ugly confrontation with fans at his first home game for the Los Angeles Galaxy after returning from Italy and his spell with Milan. The midfielder attempted to jump over a barrier as he left the field at half-time into a section of the crowd that had been jeering him.
The former England captain was held back by security staff, who also needed to restrain an angry fan who left his seat and rushed towards the footballer. The 34-year-old afterwards tried to explain what had happened by saying: “One of the guys was saying things that really wasn’t very nice. It was stepping over the line. I said ‘You need to calm down and come shake my hand’ and he jumped over.” Asked whether his intention was to do “a Cantona” and attack the fan, Beckham smiled and said: “No, of course not.”
The man was arrested by California State Dominguez Hills police for trespassing because he left the seating area, a Home Depot Center spokeswoman said. “I know there was some turmoil in the corner but I didn’t see it so I can’t comment,” Galaxy manager Bruce Arena said. “Obviously, there were some dissenters in the early going but I think he won over a lot of people by the end.”
• Was Beckham right to react? Vote now in our poll
• Galaxy fans label Beckham ‘stupid’
• Milan admit Beckham could return next season
Beckham received a less than friendly welcome at his first home game after returning from a five-month loan spell at Milan – the team the Galaxy faced in a friendly that finished 2–2. A section of the crowd booed Beckham every time he touched the ball and held aloft signs reading “Go Home Fraud” and “23: Repent” in reference to his shirt number. Another read: “Hey Becks, Here Before You, Here after You, Here Despite You” while one stated: “Is evil something u are … or something u do?”
Earlier this year, Beckham indicated he wanted to stay in Milan rather than return to America, stating that the standard of play was far higher in Italy. The apparent snub has angered some Galaxy fans, notably a hardcore that sit in the so-called LA Riot Squad section. Throughout the first half of the game he was subjected to jeers and obscene chants.
After the referee blew for half-time, Beckham tried to hurdle an advertising boarding and appeared to make a “come on” gesture towards fans. In response, one man left his seat, jumped down on to the pitch and attempted to run towards Beckham. At this point security intervened and escorted Beckham to the changing room, while removing the fan from the pitch.
Despite the incident, Beckham returned in the second half. He was the last man to take to the pitch and hugged several of his former Milan team-mates before gesturing towards the rowdy section of the crowd. A line of yellow-jacketed security staff stood below the supporters in the trouble area as a precaution.
On the pitch Beckham had a hand in both Galaxy goals, scored by Alan Gordon and Bryan Jordan, as they twice came from behind to draw. Thiago Silva and Filippo Inzaghi scored for Milan.
After the second Galaxy goal, Beckham turned and shrugged his shoulders in the direction of the section of crowd that had been jeering him. The former Manchester United star was substituted after 75 minutes and walked off to a mixture of cheers and boos. Of the boos, Beckham said: “It’s to be expected. Sometimes it goes beyond it. The majority of the fans have been great.”
English football star David Beckham was involved in an ugly confrontation with fans during his home return game here, as the friendly match between LA Galaxy and AC Milan ended in a 2-2 draw.
Beckham attempted to jump over a barrier as he left the field at half-time to approach a section of the [...]
House Health Care Bill (Pages 51-100)
P. 51
covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to
personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of
high quality health care or related services.
(b) IMPLEMENTATION.–To implemen…
Five people were killed and another 15 injured when a section of a partially-constructed New Delhi metro bridge gave way suddenly early Sunday, a spokesman for the rail service said. The accident occurred when a pillar supporting part of the carriageway collapsed, Anuj Dayal, spokesman for
Guess The Mystery Couple
Here’s a picture taken behind the scenes at a hit TV show.
Can you name one or both of them?
Hint: One of their haircuts is new.
Put your guesses in the comments section.