- Sony backs down, won’t enforce PSN accounts for Helldivers 2 PC players on Steam Ars Technica
- PlayStation Reverses Course on Helldivers 2 PSN Account Requirement IGN
- Sony reverses unpopular Helldivers 2 decision after blistering player reaction The Verge
- Sony Is Making A Truly Terrible Mistake With ‘Helldivers 2’ — Update: Sony Reverses Course Forbes
- As Helldivers 2’s Steam reviews begin to recover, Arrowhead’s CEO shares an ‘accidental’ cape design based upon its Overwhelmingly Negative rating, and of course the community wants it added to the game PC Gamer
Tag Archives: enforce
Johnson & Johnson Confirms Intent Not to Enforce Patents for SIRTURO® (bedaquiline) for the Treatment of Multidrug-Resistant Tuberculosis in 134 Low- and Middle-Income Countries – Johnson & Johnson
- Johnson & Johnson Confirms Intent Not to Enforce Patents for SIRTURO® (bedaquiline) for the Treatment of Multidrug-Resistant Tuberculosis in 134 Low- and Middle-Income Countries Johnson & Johnson
- J&J will not enforce TB drug bedaquiline patent in many countries STAT
- MSF responds to groundbreaking news that Johnson & Johnson will not enforce patents on key TB drug bedaquiline in low- and middle-income countries MSF Access Campaign
- MSF welcomes J&J’s decision to not enforce unnecessary patents on key TB drug Doctors Without Borders (MSF-USA)
- Unitaid slams J&J over pricing and patents for a tuberculosis drug STAT
- View Full Coverage on Google News
Sofía Vergara Asks Court to Enforce Prenup With Joe Manganiello – Harper’s BAZAAR
- Sofía Vergara Asks Court to Enforce Prenup With Joe Manganiello Harper’s BAZAAR
- Sofia Vergara Follows Up Joe Manganiello’s Divorce Filing by Asking Court to Enforce Their Prenup Yahoo Entertainment
- Sofia Vergara wears leopard print dress for girl’s night out HOLA! USA
- Sofia Vergara asks court to uphold prenup with Joe Manganiello in new divorce filing Fox News
- Sofía Vergara Asks Court to Enforce Joe Manganiello Prenup, Plus Preserve Her Earnings and Assets During Marriage Yahoo Entertainment
- View Full Coverage on Google News
Top EU regulator defends mega $1.3 billion privacy fine on Meta: ‘I have to enforce the law’ – CNBC
- Top EU regulator defends mega $1.3 billion privacy fine on Meta: ‘I have to enforce the law’ CNBC
- European Union rejects Meta challenge, fined with 1.2 billion | English News | WION WION
- Meta Loses Another EU Lawsuit Shortly After Hefty Penalty For Data Privacy Breach – Meta Platforms (NASDAQ:META) Benzinga
- The Irish Times view on Meta’s €1.2bn fine: a serious case of privacy violations – The Irish Times The Irish Times
- Ireland Data Protection Commissioner on her record-breaking fine against Meta Platforms CNBC Television
- View Full Coverage on Google News
Reese Witherspoon to enforce prenup with Jim Toth: What are the terms of the divorce? – Marca English
- Reese Witherspoon to enforce prenup with Jim Toth: What are the terms of the divorce? Marca English
- Reese Witherspoon Spotted Without Ring for First Time amid Divorce PEOPLE
- ‘Whoever said orange is the new pink was seriously disturbed,’ Her divorce has made headlines, but have you seen Reese Witherspoon’s most iconic movies? msnNOW
- Jim Toth’s Risky Career Change Reportedly Played a Major Role in His Relationship With Reese Witherspoon Yahoo Life
- Reese Witherspoon Officially Files for Divorce From Estranged Husband Jim Toth After More Than a Decade of Marriage Us Weekly
- View Full Coverage on Google News
Arizona judge rules state can enforce near-total abortion ban
In ruling that Arizona’s near-total ban on abortion could take effect, Pima County Superior Court Judge Kellie Johnson granted a request by the state’s Republican attorney general to lift a court injunction that had barred enforcement of Arizona’s pre-statehood ban on abortion after the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade in 1973.
“The court finds that because the legal basis for the judgment entered in 1973 has now been overruled, it must vacate the judgment in its entirety,” Johnson wrote in the ruling released Friday.
The case has thrust the issue of how restrictive abortion law should be in Arizona, a swing state that President Joe Biden carried by fewer than 11,000 votes. It’s a controversial topic that has divided Republicans in Arizona and is reflective of a pitched debate nationwide in the wake of the US Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade in late June, with many GOP-led states passing increasingly restrictive measures that run the risk of alienating moderate voters.
The judge’s ruling effectively outlaws all abortions in Arizona except when the procedure is necessary to save the mother’s life. The decision came a day before a 15-week ban on abortion was slated to go into effect in Arizona. That law was passed by Arizona lawmakers before the US Supreme Court decision.
Conservative Arizona lawmakers included language in the bill banning abortion after 15 weeks stating that the new legislation would not override the 1901 law — which was passed before Arizona became a state and can be traced back to as early as 1864. In addition to barring abortion in all cases except when “it is necessary to save (the mother’s) life,” the pre-statehood law carries a prison sentence of two to five years for abortion providers.
While fighting the attorney general’s move to allow the 1901 abortion ban to be enforced, abortion rights groups had argued that if both laws were to go into effect, it would create significant confusion for both abortion providers and women seeking care. But the judge said in her ruling that she was not weighing in on how the conflict between Arizona’s abortion laws would be settled.
“While there may be legal questions the parties seek to resolve regarding Arizona statutes on abortion, those questions are not for this Court to decide here,” Johnson wrote in the decision.
The ruling drew a swift rebuke from several Democratic groups that favor abortion rights and Democratic gubernatorial nominee Katie Hobbs, who said she was “outraged and devastated” by the decision.
“There’s no doubt in my mind that this draconian 1901 law will have dire consequences on the health and well-being of Arizona women and their families,” Hobbs said in a statement. “This cruel law effectively outlaws abortion in Arizona — with no exceptions for rape or incest — and risks women’s fundamental freedom to make their own health care decisions. … To make matters worse, this law mandates jail time for abortion providers. Medical professionals will now be forced to think twice and call their lawyer before providing patients with oftentimes necessary, lifesaving care.”
Arizona GOP Attorney General Mark Brnovich, who led the legal process to try to get the state’s pre-statehood ban on abortion put back into effect after the Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade in late June, tweeted that he was pleased by the decision:
“We applaud the court for upholding the will of the legislature and providing clarity and uniformity on this important issue. I have and will continue to protect the most vulnerable Arizonans,” he tweeted.
The disagreement over Arizona’s abortion laws has created a confusing legal landscape in Arizona for much of the summer that has unfolded against the backdrop of a shifting national political mood ahead of November’s midterm elections. While both historical trends and the nation’s sour mood about inflation had initially appeared to favor Republicans in their quest to take control of the US House and Senate this November, the Supreme Court’s decision on abortion has energized female voters all over the country — a dynamic that led to the surprising victory for proponents of abortion rights in Kansas and better-than-expected performances for Democrats in special elections for the US House since the Dobbs ruling.
The ruling injects a new uncertainty into the marquee statewide races. Republicans, who need a net gain of just one seat to flip the Senate, are trying to unseat Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly as he runs for a full six-year term. And Democrats are trying to flip the governor’s mansion, currently held by term-limited Republican Gov. Doug Ducey.
In the Arizona governor’s race, Hobbs has portrayed GOP opponent Kari Lake as “extreme” on abortion. Lake has repeatedly said she is opposed to the procedure and in an August news conference said that she would “uphold the laws that are on the books.” But she did not specify which laws she meant. “If people don’t like the laws on the books, then they need to elect representatives who will change the laws. I’m running for governor, not for God. So I don’t get to write the laws,” she said.
Her campaign has not responded to CNN’s requests for clarification on her view of the pre-statehood law.
Both Lake and GOP Senate nominee Blake Masters, who is challenging Kelly, have argued that their Democratic opponents have adopted positions that are too far out of the mainstream in favor of abortion rights.
Masters removed language from his campaign website expressing support for a “federal personhood law” and other conservative anti-abortion stances after winning the GOP nomination last month. His campaign told CNN that Masters does support South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham’s proposal for a federal ban on abortion at 15 weeks, which would provide exceptions to protect the life of the mother and in cases of rape or incest.
But before the ruling, Masters’ campaign did not respond to questions about his position on the pre-statehood law or the court case to enforce it.
In a statement Friday, Kelly said the decision would “have a devastating impact on the freedom Arizona women have had for decades: to choose an abortion if they need one. Let’s be clear, this is exactly what Blake Masters wants, to completely ban abortions in Arizona and across the country — without even an exception for rape or incest. I will never stop fighting to restore these rights for Arizona women.”
Planned Parenthood Federation of America fought Brnovich’s move in Pima County Superior Court — the court that handled the 1973 injunction.
The group’s lawyers had argued that the court had a duty to “harmonize all of the Arizona Legislature’s enactments as they exist today.” In the post-Dobbs era, the group argued that the pre-statehood law could “be enforceable in some respects” but that it should not apply to abortions provided by licensed physicians — and instead that the ban should apply to anyone other than a licensed physician who attempts to provide abortion services.
In a statement, Brittany Fonteno, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Arizona, said Friday’s ruling “has the practical and deplorable result of sending Arizonans back nearly 150 years. No archaic law should dictate our reproductive freedom and how we live our lives today.”
This story has been updated with additional details Friday.
CNN’s Paradise Afshar contributed to this report.
Airbnb rolls out ‘anti-party technology’ to help enforce its global ban
The new system analyzes a variety of factors, according to a company announcement Tuesday, including previous reviews, how long a user has been on the platform, the length of the stay and whether the rental is occurring on a weekend or weekday.
The goal, Airbnb said, is to “help identify potentially high-risk reservations” and prevent those users from completing a booking. Those who are unable to book homes as a result of the anti-party tech will have the option to reserve a hotel room or a private room (rather than an entire property where a host is less likely to be present) through the platform, Airbnb said.
Airbnb made its ban on all parties and events permanent in June, about two years after announcing a temporary prohibition. Initially, the company said the ban was to mitigate the spread of Covid-19 through social distancing efforts, as well as a response to pandemic bar and club closures pushing many Airbnb users to party in rented homes. But eventually, the company said, the move “developed into a bedrock community policy.”
Over the years, Airbnb has had to confront headlines about violent incidents taking place during parties at rental properties. In April, for instance, two teens were killed and several people were injured at a party thrown in an Airbnb-rented property in Pittsburgh.
Airbnb said there was a 44% year-over-year decline in the rate of party reports in June, which it attributed to the policy change.
Airbnb has been testing similar technology to address the issue in Australia since 2021, with a 35% decline in unauthorized parties following the rollout, according to the company. Airbnb said the pilot in Australia was so effective that it is now becoming permanent in the country and the company is “hoping for similar success” in North America.
After announcing a temporary ban on parties in 2020, Airbnb implemented a similar system focused on users under the age of 25 who were booking rentals locally and did not have positive reviews. The company described its newer anti-party technology as “more robust and sophisticated.”
“We anticipate that this new system will help prevent more bad actors on our platform,” the company said, “while having less of a blunt impact on guests who are not trying to throw a party.”
Marshal of the Supreme Court asks Maryland officials to enforce anti-picketing laws
“You recently stated that you were ‘deeply concerned’ that ‘hundreds of demonstrators have recently chosen to picket Supreme Court Justices at their homes in…Maryland,” the letter to Hogan by Col. Gail A Curley said. “Since then, protest activity at the Justices’ homes, as well as threatening activity, has only increased.”
The letters, dated Friday and released by a court spokesperson on Saturday to reporters, refer to protests that have taken place “for weeks on end.”
Curley cites the arrest near Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s Maryland home in early June of a man who was later charged by the Justice Department with attempting or threatening to kidnap or murder a US judge. The man had been armed, according to the FBI. Several Supreme Court justices live in Maryland.
Protests began in May when a draft majority opinion overturning the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision was leaked and published by, and armed guards were sent to provide 24-hour protection at the justices’ homes. When the high court ended Roe on June 24 — holding that there was no longer a federal constitutional right to an abortion — the protests continued.
According to Curley, “large groups of protesters” have “picketed” justices’ homes in Maryland, “chanting slogans, using bullhorns, and banging drums.”
“This is exactly the kind of conduct that the Maryland and Montgomery County laws prohibit,” Curley wrote, calling on Hogan to direct the Maryland State Police and for Elrich to direct the Montgomery County Police to enforce the laws without delay.
The letters were sent as the court ended a blockbuster term.
Following the leak of the draft opinion in May, the Department of Homeland Security issued a memo warning law enforcement that there are potential threats to Supreme Court members and that the court’s police have noticed a major uptick in social media threats of violence, with some prompting investigation.
Facing pressure from Republicans in Congress, Attorney General Merrick Garland said last month that the Justice Department was taking the threats against Supreme Court justices “extraordinarily seriously.”
Garland said he met with the marshal of the Supreme Court, the FBI and others “to be sure that we were assessing all possible threats and providing all resources available.”
The Justice Department had declined to comment at the time on calls to enforce a federal law that essentially bans protesting outside a judge’s residence for the purpose of influencing them. The federal law is rarely enforced and broadly written.
President Joe Biden signed legislation last month to extend security protection for justices’ immediate family members.
Following the arrest near Kavanaugh’s house, Hogan said in a statement that there had been “heightened security” at the homes of justices since May.
“It is vital to our constitutional system that the justices be able to carry out their duties without fear of violence against them and their families,” Hogan said. “We will continue to partner with both federal and local law enforcement officials to help ensure these residential areas are secure.”
Maryland law prohibits a person from “intentionally assembl(ing) with another in a manner that disrupts a person’s right to tranquility in the person’s home.”
Under a Montgomery county ordinance, an individual or group “must not picket in front of or adjacent to any private residence” but a group can be allowed to march in a residential area “without stopping at any particular private residence.” Picketing is defined as “to post a person or persons at a particular place to convey a message.”
In an m, Marcus Jones, the chief of police in Montgomery County, told CNN that there are “state and local laws that pertain to protests.”
“They are allowed to be in the neighborhoods, but they must continuously walk, they cannot stand specifically in front of a neighborhood with signs and bull horns and yelling at the residents,” Jones said about the rules for protesters. “They must not block sidewalks, and they must not block the streets.”
“If they violate any of those … particular regulations, then we will arrest them,” he added.
CNN has reached out to Hogan’s and Elrich’s offices for comment.
CORRECTION: A previous version of this story misspelled Montgomery County Executive Marc Elrich’s first name.
This story has been updated.
Miranda rights: Supreme Court limits ability to enforce Miranda rights
The court’s ruling will cut back on an individual’s protections against self-incrimination by barring the potential to obtain damages. It also means that the failure to administer the warning will not expose a law enforcement officer to potential damages in a civil lawsuit. It will not impact, however, the exclusion of such evidence at a criminal trial.
The court clarified that while the Miranda warning protects a constitutional right, the warning itself is not a right that would trigger the ability to bring a civil lawsuit.
“Today’s ruling doesn’t get rid of the Miranda right,” said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law. “But it does make it far harder to enforce. Under this ruling, the only remedy for a violation of Miranda is to suppress statements obtained from a suspect who’s not properly advised of his right to remain silent. But if the case never goes to trial, or if the government never seeks to use the statement, or if the statement is admitted notwithstanding the Miranda violation, there’s no remedy at all for the government’s misconduct.”
Justice Samuel Alito, joined by the five other Republican-appointed justices, said that a violation of the Miranda right “is not itself a violation of the Fifth Amendment,” and that “we see no justification for expanding Miranda to confer a right to sue,” under the relevant statute.
Justice Elena Kagan, joined by the other liberal justices, said that the court’s ruling was stripping “individuals of the ability to seek a remedy for violations of the right recognized in Miranda.”
“The majority here, as elsewhere, injures the right by denying the remedy,” she added.
The case involved Terence Tekoh, a hospital worker who was accused of sexually assaulting an immobilized female patient at a local hospital in 2014.
At issue was not whether a defendant must be read his Miranda rights, but whether he can sue an officer for damages if he doesn’t receive the Miranda warning for evidence introduced in a criminal proceeding. Lower courts have split on the issue.
Carlos Vega, a Los Angeles County sheriff deputy, questioned Tekoh, although he failed to read him his rights as required by the 1966 precedent of Miranda v. Arizona, where the court held that a defendant must be warned of a “right to remain silent.” Under that precedent, without the Miranda warning, criminal trial courts are generally barred from admitting self-incriminating statements made while the defendant was in custody.
Tekoh ultimately confessed to the crime, was tried and acquitted — even after the introduction of his confession at trial. Later, he sued the officer under a federal law, Section 1983, that allows suits for damages against a government official for violating constitutional rights.
The parties disagreed on whether Vega used coercive techniques to extract an involuntary confession.
Lawyers for Vega said Tekoh’s statement was entirely consensual and voluntary, and he was not technically “in custody” at the time, while Tekoh’s lawyers contended he was bullied into confessing in a windowless room.
Roman Martinez, a lawyer for Vega, said that Tekoh couldn’t bring his claim because establishing a violation of Miranda does not establish a violation of the Fifth Amendment.
“Miranda creates a procedural rule barring prosecutors from introducing—and courts from admitting—certain unwarned statements as a part of the prosecution’s case-in-chief at a criminal trial,” Martinez argued in court papers.
For Martinez, the Miranda warning is a constitutional rule, it is not a right, and under that interpretation the lawsuit cannot go forward. “Miranda does not prohibit taking unwarned statements; it merely forbids the subsequent admission of such statements at trial,” Martinez argued.
He said an appeals court ruling that went in favor of Tekoh would “saddle police departments nationwide with extraordinary burdens in connection with lawful and appropriate investigative work.” Any police interaction, according to Martinez, could give rise to a private lawsuit “even where the police officer has acted entirely lawfully.”
The Biden administration sided with Vega.
“Because the Miranda rule concerns the introduction of evidence at trial, a suspect may not sue the police officer under Section 1983 for violating that rule,” Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar argued in court papers.
Lawyers for Tekoh argued that Vega refused to accept Tekoh’s denials and that “with a hand resting on his firearm,” Vega threatened to report Tekoh and his family members to immigration. Tekoh has a green card, and deportation could lead to persecution in Cameroon.
Paul Hoffman, a lawyer for Tekoh, said that Vega was “the central actor in the chain of events leading directly to the statement being introduced at trial.”
This story has been updated with additional reporting.
China Warns Biden Not To Enforce Xinjiang Import Law: Report
The Chinese government has warned the Biden administration not to enforce a new law that bans imports from the Xianjing province unless it can be proven that the products were not made by forced labor.
What Happened: Bloomberg reported that the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, which was signed into law in December and takes effect on June 21, was created in response to reports of grievous human rights abuses by the Chinese government against the Uyghur Muslim minority population.
But China’s government stated the new law would “severely” damage ties if it begins to reject Chinese imports.
“If the act is implemented, it will severely disrupt normal cooperation between China and the US, and global industrial and production chains,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said Thursday at a press briefing in Beijing, adding that the law will “hobble China’s development.”
Zhao also cautioned that “if the US insists on doing so, China will take robust measures to uphold its own rights and interests as well as its dignity.” However, Zhao did not offer any details to go with the threat.
See Also: Amazon To Shutter Kindle eBook Store In China: Report
What Happens Next: The new law operates under the belief that all Xinjiang-made products were created by forced labor and insists that importers produce “clear and compelling evidence” that determines the items were not created by an imprisoned workforce.
The situation in Xinjiang has been challenging to Western companies who are not eager to displease the prickly Chinese leadership with even the vaguest suggestion that all is not well in the province.
Even the brashly loquacious Elon Musk has taken on self-enforced silence on the subject, when Tesla TSLA opened a showroom in Xinjiang’s capital of Urumqi on Dec. 31. The news of the showroom was announced by Tesla’s account on the China-facing Weibo social media platform but not shared on Musk’s preferred Twitter TWTR platform — and nor did Musk repeated questions tweeted to him by Benzinga regarding his business dealings in Xinjiang.
Photo: Leo Reynolds / Flickr Creative Commons