#so he countersued fox for damages

[tedhead]

Dean Martin and Marilyn Monroe in outtakes from the unfinished film Something’s Got To Give.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

mike luckovich :: @mluckovichajc

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

January 16, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

JAN 17, 2024

[Warning: paragraphs 6–8 talk about rape.]

In yesterday’s Iowa caucus, 51% of Republican caucusgoers chose former president Donald Trump as their preferred candidate for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. Twenty-one percent of Republican caucusgoers chose Florida governor Ron DeSantis. Nineteen percent chose former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley. Seven percent chose technology entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy. These results mean that 20 of Iowa’s 40 delegates will go to Trump; 8 to DeSantis; 7 to Haley; and three to Ramaswamy. An apparent Trump surrogate in the primary debates, Ramaswamy suspended his campaign after the caucus and endorsed Trump.  

Turnout was much lower than expected, with only about 110,000 people voting. That’s about 15% of Iowa’s three quarters of a million registered Republicans out of a population of just over 3 million people.

On Friday, January 12, in Des Moines, DeSantis blamed right-wing media for Trump’s continued popularity. “He’s got basically a Praetorian Guard of the conservative media—Fox News, the websites, all this stuff,” DeSantis said, referring to the elite unit of the Roman army that protected the emperor both physically and through intelligence collecting. “They just don’t hold him accountable, because they’re worried about losing viewers and they don’t want to have the ratings go down. And that’s just the reality.”

For his part, true to form, Trump has shared a story that Haley is not eligible to be president because her parents were not citizens when she was born in the U.S. in 1972. This reflects both his “birther” history and his promise to end the birthright citizenship established in 1868 by the Fourteenth Amendment. Also true to form, he made no accusations of voter fraud or rigged voting last night as he has done in the past when he lost elections; indeed, he told supporters this was his third win in Iowa. The truth is that in 2016 he lost Iowa’s caucus vote to Texas senator Ted Cruz. 

The Iowa results pretty much told us what we already knew. Trump remains the dominant leader of the hard-right older Republicans who turn out for caucuses, but is so generally unpopular that 49% of Iowa caucusgoers—the party’s most dedicated supporters in a deeply Republican state—chose someone else. The Trump base is older—entry polls showed that only 27% of yesterday’s voters were under the age of 50—and Trump won most handily in the rural, white counties that look least like the rest of the country. His greatest increase in support since 2016 came among white evangelicals. 

That support from those who claim fervent religious beliefs seems an odd fit with the candidate, who was in a federal courtroom in New York City today for the start of a trial to determine the additional damages he owes writer E. Jean Carroll for defaming her after she said he raped her in the 1990s, claiming she was lying to sell books. Carroll sued him in 2019, but the case has been delayed as Trump argued that he had presidential immunity for his comments.

While it was delayed, in May 2023 a jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse in a second civil trial known as Carroll II. The jury ordered Trump to pay Carroll $5 million. When Trump’s team countersued Carroll for defamation, saying the jury had found him liable not for rape, but for sexual abuse, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan said Carroll’s words were “substantially true.” Kaplan made it clear that New York law defines rape very narrowly. He said “the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact…‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape.’” “The jury,” he wrote, “found that Mr. Trump forcibly penetrated her vagina.” 

Today the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied Trump’s claim of presidential immunity for his defamation of Carroll and dismissed his argument that his comments weren’t defamatory. 

Carroll II established guidelines for the previous case as it finally moved forward. In a pretrial judgment, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan determined that Trump is liable for defamation for his ridicule of Carroll. Trump remains undeterred. As he arrived at the courthouse this morning, Alex Woodward noted in The Independent, his social media account released a flood of “potentially defamatory statements” attacking Carroll.  

In Politico, Erica Orden noted that today’s trial is just down the street from the Trump trial for civil fraud that ended last Thursday. In that case, Judge Arthur Engoron has already ruled that Trump committed business fraud. The trial was over fines, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, and the Trump Organization’s continuing ability to do business in New York. Trump’s outburst at the end of the trial attacking the judge and New York attorney general Letitia James suggests that he has little faith that he is going to win that case and is instead turning it into a political pulpit as part of his attempt to undermine the American justice system. On Thursday morning, law enforcement officers showed up at Judge Engoron’s house in a “swatting” incident after someone falsely told police a violent crime was being committed there.  

Attorney Joe Tacopina filed papers to withdraw himself and his two partners from Trump’s defense team yesterday. 

White evangelicals heartily endorse a crook and a rapist apparently because they expect that he will put in place the world they envision, one controlled by white, patriarchal evangelical Christians.

But as even the Iowa caucuses indicated, the idea of replacing American democracy with an authoritarian who will enact Christian nationalism is not generally popular. In the Washington Post on January 11, Philip Bump explored a new poll by YouGov showing that when U.S. adult citizens are presented with 30 of Trump’s declared policies, majorities oppose 22 of them. A majority approved only four of them, and those were the ones the right wing has been hammering: banning hormonal or surgical treatment for transgender minors (57%), legally limiting recognized genders (53%), requiring immigrants to remain in Mexico while their asylum claims are being processed (56%), and—by a narrow majority of 51%—deporting immigrants in the U.S. illegally. 

Some of Trump’s signature policies are deeply unpopular. Only 21% of Americans support getting rid of the nonpartisan civil service; only 18% support giving the president control over regulatory agencies like the Federal Communications Commission. Only 31% support sending U.S. troops into U.S. cities to enforce order; only 33% support sending troops into Mexico to fight drug cartels. Only 23% support further cuts to taxes on corporations. Only 29% want to get rid of the Affordable Care Act (which has seen a record 20.5 million Americans enroll so far in the current enrollment period); only 28% support withdrawing from the World Health Organization. Only 38% want to end birthright citizenship, the same percentage as those who want to end U.S. aid to Ukraine. 

The YouGov study shows that only 30% of Americans support withdrawing from the Paris Climate Accords, and a December 2023 CNN poll showed that 73% want the government to do more to address climate change. And yet, today, Scott Waldman of Politico previewed the Trump team’s preparation for ending all efforts to address climate change. Complaining that the people in Trump’s first administration were “weak,” Trump advisor Steve Milloy told Waldman that  “The approach is to go back to all-out fossil fuel production and sit on the EPA.” 

“We are writing a battle plan, and we are marshaling our forces,” Paul Dans, director of Project 2025 at the Heritage Foundation, said last year. “Never before has the whole conservative movement banded together to systematically prepare to take power Day 1 and deconstruct the administrative state.”

Meanwhile, Politico’s roundup of Washington, D.C., news shows that President Joe Biden has invited top congressional leaders of both parties—Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), and House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY)—and relevant committee chairs to a meeting at the White House tomorrow to discuss the stalled aid package to Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan, and the U.S. border. Also today, the Senate is considering the continuing resolution to fund the government before the current continuing resolution ends on Friday. 

Speaker Johnson has pushed off House votes until Wednesday out of apparent concern about the snow in Washington today.

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[pashterlengkap]

A right-wing extremist called a “Drag Race” star a “pedo.” Now he’s paying the price

Laurence Fox, a prominent right-wing activist and former actor in the United Kingdom, has been told to pay £180,000 ($225,242) to two LGBTQ+ men, former Stonewall trustee Simon Blake and RuPaul’s Drag Race UK star Crystal, following comments Fox made on X (formerly Twitter) falsely referring to them as pedophiles. Fox had previously lost a libel battle involving the two men back in January, when high court judge Justice Collins Rice ruled that he had defamed them. He has been ordered to pay each of them £90,000 ($112,621). This defamation occurred when Fox had decried the supermarket chain Sainsbury’s, calling for a boycott after they made a social post celebrating Black History Month. Blake and Crystal, whose legal name is Colin Seymour, had called him a racist for his post, after which he replied with an accusation that the two men are pedophiles. “By calling Mr. Blake and Mr. Seymour pedophiles, Mr. Fox subjected them to a wholly undeserved public ordeal,” said Rice. “It was a gross, groundless and indefensible libel, with distressing and harmful real-world consequences for them.” Fox had previously attempted to countersue both of the men in response to them calling him a racist. He alleged that being called a racist was “reputation-destroying” and “career-ending,” and that he had lost work as a result of it. The claim was dismissed following the January ruling. Rice called the libel against the two men “distinctly homophobic.” She added, “They are entitled by law to an award of money, to compensate them for those damaging effects, and to ensure that they can put this matter behind them, vindicated and confident that no one can sensibly doubt their blamelessness of that disgusting slur and that they were seriously wronged by it.” The judge ruled that if Fox repeated these allegations, he could be held in contempt of court. Fox is the founder of the U.K. Reform Party, and had made his career starring in television programs like ITV’s Lewis. He has previously ran for mayor of London unsuccessfully. He is also a former pundit for the right-wing news network GB News. In the last, Fox has posted pictures of the Pride flag as a swastika, burned the flag on video, engaged in blackface, mocked Black Lives Matter, and opposed national COVID safety guidelines such as lockdowns and social distancing. Crystal alleged following the January ruling that after Fox’s statements on Twitter, he received a great deal of abuse. “It’s horrible,” he said to PinkNews. “It’s been three years of a pretty-non-stop barrage of abuse, especially whenever I put myself in a public sphere where I’m going to be encountering people who aren’t part of the drag community or drag fans or the queer community.” The judge expressed sympathy for Blake and Crystal, saying that “They had been forced to fight a libel claim all the way through to trial with every conceivable point being taken against them. They have done so under the sustained hailstorm of Mr Fox’s exercise of his rights to amplified free speech.” Fox referred to the ruling as a “bullies charter” and expressed his grievances with it on Twitter, saying, “You get the same wonga if you lose a leg at work. So surreal it’s almost funny.” The concept of referring to LGBTQ+ people as “pedophiles” or “groomers” has been going on for years and encourages violence against the LGBTQ+ community. The slur has especially been used against drag performers who have been vilified internationally for allegedly “sexualizing children” through “adult” performances. http://dlvr.it/T61Q6m

[digitalimages9085]

Copyright

·        Why do we have copyright laws?

Australian Copyright Council, An Introduction to Copyright in Australia – Information Sheet (PDF), 2019, viewed June 27 2021

So that creators can protect their original works from any copycats or stealing, allowing them to dictate who can use their work and for how much, providing an incentive to continue to create. It allows them to make a living off their works and create a legal structure around the distribution and use of their work.

·        How long does copyright last?

In Australia, copyright lasts for the creator’s lifetime after the work was created and about 70 years after the creator has passed (only works published during the creator’s lifetime). But if you use a pseudonym rather than your own identity, it’s only covered for 70 years after publication rather than after death unless the people who want to use your work can find your real name easily.

·        What will happen if you break copyright laws?

https://anchordigital.com.au/copyright-infringement-in-australia/

Anchor Digital, Copyright Infringement in Australia, 2020, viewed June 27 2021

Depending on the type of infringement and severity of it, the dispute can be taken to court and solved there. The infringement takes place if an integral, essential, or distinctive aspect of the work is copied in any way. If one is found guilty of infringement, fines are typically placed on the perpetrator for either damages or accounts of profits. There are other fines that can be placed by the courts. Typically though, for small infringements between creators, any disputes could be sorted personally by the two people and resolutions met without court action.

·        Find two (2) examples of when copyright laws were broken, and what action was taken.

https://realbusiness.co.uk/6-famous-copyright-cases

Praseeda Nair, Real Business, 6 Famous Copyright Cases, 2020, viewed June 27 2021

1.       Star Wars vs Battlestar Galactica

Star Wars sued Battlestar Galactica (or, more accurately, Fox sued Universal Studios) over many concepts that they had apparently repurposed from Star Wars, primarily titles and names (e.g. Skylar vs Skywalker). Universal quickly countersued, claiming Star Wars copied from some of their other works, and a member of Fox’s staff, sci-fi writer Jerry Pournelle, says that he was “was paid $20,000 by Universal to show that Battlestar Galactica and Star Wars were made from two different cloths”. It was ruled in Universal’s favour after two years, but the Battlestar Galactica film was already cancelled by that point.

2.       Apple vs Microsoft

Apple sued Microsoft for what they had considered to be identical looking software engines after an agreement between the two in which Microsoft had helped Apple develop the Macintosh 1.0. Certain features from that project were implemented into Window’s earlier prototype of Macintosh, creating Windows 2.0. Apple filed the lawsuit in 1988, claiming that it was a breach in contract and that Windows only had access to their software for 1.0. The lawsuit ended in Window’s favour as the court ruled that “179 of the 189 disputed displays were covered by the existing license”, and the other “breaches” were too meagre for copyright to be implemented.

·        What percentage, if any, of a copyrighted image are you legally allowed to use in your artwork?

https://www.copyright.com.au/about-copyright/copyright-myths/

Copyright Agency, Copyright.com, Copyright Myths, 2020, viewed June 27 2021

In special circumstances, such as using the image as a student for schoolwork or an educational institute for educational purposes, under 10% can be used without the need of permission. One can legally use the entire artwork with permission from the original creator. Otherwise, to use any portion of the work must be under permission from the creator.

·        What are moral rights?

Moral rights are the personal rights that a creator is granted that allows them freedom to distribute their work under a pseudonym or anonymous and the right for integrity of their work. Depending on the type of work, the amount of moral rights one has to their work can be limited.

·        How can you assert your copyright and moral rights when publishing your original artwork?

You can use watermarks to claim property of artworks so that any copyright infringements can be prevented or found immediately and reported. You can also make a statement on your position on any potential copyright infringements, or a contract.  

[thewebofslime]

Media Matters chief David Brock paid a former domestic partner $850,000 after being threatened with damaging information involving the organization’s donors and the IRS – a deal that Brock later characterized as a blackmail payment, according to legal documents obtained by FoxNews.com. In an acrimonious lawsuit settled at the end of last year, Brock accused William Grey of making repeated threats to expose him to the "scorn or ridicule of his employees, donors and the press in demanding money and property." Brock claimed in legal papers that he sold a Rehoboth Beach, Del., home he once shared with Grey in order to meet Grey’s demands, which he called "blackmail" in the lawsuit. Brock, 49, heads the non-profit Media Matters for America, which bills itself as a watchdog of the conservative media but has recently come under fire for allegedly coordinating with Democrats in what could be a violation of its tax-exempt status. Brock’s bitter legal battle with Grey, who is described in a Sept. 14, 2010, police report obtained by FoxNews.com as his domestic partner of more than 10 years, began after Brock began dating Washington, D.C., restaurant impresario James Alefantis about five years ago. For the next three years, Brock and Grey traded angry accusations, which were documented in the police report and were the foundation of a pitched legal battle replete with charges of blackmail, theft and financial malfeasance. Read the police report detailing the lawsuit Alefantis was also named as a defendant in Grey's lawsuit. In his response to Brock's lawsuit, Grey "denies that he committed any "acts of blackmail."" Grey threatened to go public about Brock and Media Matters' finances after he accused Brock in a civil suit filed in Washington of taking $170,000 in possessions, including an $8,000 Louis Vuitton suit bag, paintings, a rug, a chandelier, a painted bust of a Roman soldier and a pair of carved wooden chairs upholstered with purple fabric. Those possessions were displayed in the Washington townhouse where the couple entertained liberal movers and shakers in happier times. Brock took Grey’s threats seriously and called police in 2010. In the police report, filed by Metropolitan Police as a stalking incident, Brock accused Grey, also 49, of attempting to blackmail him with a series of emails threatening to "release specific derogatory information about [Brock] and his organization to the press and donors that would be embarrassing to him and cause harm to the organization …" Some of those emails came out as the lawsuit, filed by Grey on Jan. 28, 2011, wound its way through Superior Court of the District of Columbia last year. Read the complete lawsuit filed by William Grey "Please finish this today so I don’t have to waste my time emailing anyone – Biden, Coulter, Carlson, Huffington, Drudge, Ingraham," Grey wrote in a 2008 email. Nearly two years later, Grey accused Brock of "financial malfeasance" and threatened to undermine Brock’s fundraising efforts. "Next step is I contact all your donors and the IRS," Grey wrote in an email dated May 19, 2010. "This is going to stink for you if you do not resolve this now." Brock said in court papers that he paid Grey "under duress." On March 8, 2011, Brock filed his own suit against Grey for more than $4 million, demanding Grey return the $850,000, plus pay millions more in punitive damages. The two settled two months ago under terms that remain confidential.  Read the complete counterclaim filed by David Brock  Paying off Grey may not have been easy for Brock, even with his salary of nearly $300,000 at Media Matters. Records show Brock had pulled massive amounts of equity from the six-bedroom Rehoboth Beach house as its value skyrocketed during the real estate bubble. Sussex County property records show he took out a $273,000 mortgage to buy the pale yellow colonial and carriage house for $606,666 in 1995. As the converted inn, built in 1793, continued to rise in value, Brock refinanced his loan on at least two occasions. Records show he had a $1.44 million mortgage on the property, as well as two more loans against the home totaling just over $500,000. Brock received $1,587,500 for the home on May 25, 2010, in a sale to McLean, Va.-based Vardell Realty Investments. It could not be determined how much Brock still owed on the $1.44 million mortgage, or how much he netted from the sale, if any. Records indicate that Brock had paid off the two smaller loans at the time of the sale. Within a year of selling the house, Brock apparently had second thoughts about paying off Grey. In the civil suit, Brock accused Grey of three counts of blackmail, citing a statute that defines blackmail as threatening "to expose a secret or publicize a fact, whether true or false, tending to subject any person to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, to impair the reputation of any person." He countersued to get his $850,000 back, plus $500,000 for each of three counts of alleged blackmail, and another $2 million in compensatory damages based in part on what Brock’s lawyers called abuse of the judicial system and legal fees. Grey, who relocated to Massachusetts, declined to comment when contacted by FoxNews.com. Brock and Alefantis remain in Washington, where Brock has released a new book attacking Fox News. He is also under scrutiny from several members of Congress amid reports Media Matters for America is in possible violation of IRS laws governing nonprofits. The Rehoboth Beach home was torn down months after Brock sold it, amid much community opposition, so the buyer could divide the parcel and build two homes. It remains a vacant lot.