Activism

YouTube makes millions from channels pushing climate disinformation: analysis

Google-owned YouTube is again facing allegations of profiting from not enforcing its own ban on the monetization of climate misinformation, this time in a report published Friday amid legislative battles in Brazil over policies on the Amazon rainforest, Indigenous rights, and social media.

Google announced in October 2021 that for advertisers and publishers along with creators on its video platform YouTube, the company would "prohibit ads for, and monetization of, content that contradicts well-established scientific consensus around the existence and causes of climate change."

For four weeks, researchers with Ekō—a group formerly known as SumOfUs that works to curb the power of big corporations—reviewed 60 YouTube videos in English and Portuguese that contained disinformation and conspiracy theories about Amazon deforestation, Indigenous rights, and the climate emergency.

Over two-thirds of the videos were monetized, and Ekō identified more than 150 brands in the ads. Using a common industry tool, researchers estimated that the channels—which collectively had over 40 million subscribers and more than 5 million views—earn $636,000 to $10.1 million a year through monetization.

"The proliferation of disinformation and conspiracy theories are helping to derail efforts by the Lula administration to advance policy agendas around Amazon protection, Indigenous land rights, and social media regulation."

"Well-known Brazilian and global brands like Lyft, Calvin Klein, Budweiser, Panasonic, and Samsung, as well as environmental and human rights groups like Friends of the Earth U.K., UNICEF, and the Peace Corps, are appearing next to extreme climate denial content and conspiracy theories," the report states, "effectively pouring money into the pockets of conspiracy theorists and climate deniers."

"Ekō researchers found top-name apparel, electronics, and drink brands appearing next to videos suggesting actor Leonardo DiCaprio funded nongovernmental organizations to commit arson in the Amazon," the publication continues. "Other false claims include that the rainforest is too humid to catch fire, and that manmade global warming is a lie."

"The proliferation of disinformation and conspiracy theories are helping to derail efforts by the Lula administration to advance policy agendas around Amazon protection, Indigenous land rights, and social media regulation," the document adds, pushing for policy "that prevents platforms from monetizing and profiting from disinformation and lies that are subverting the legislative process."

In a statement Friday, Ekō campaign director Vicky Wyatt also demanded action from the company.

"While global warming, deforestation, and wildfires reach their highest levels ever recorded, YouTube's shameless greenwashing is exposed—with the company giving profits to climate deniers to the tune of millions," said Wyatt. "This is a clear slap in the face to the brands whose advertisements unknowingly support climate disinformation. It's time for YouTube to step up, detox its platform, and protect the integrity of the fight against the climate crisis."

Ekō's analysis follows a May report from Climate Action Against Disinformation (CAAD) for which researchers found 200 YouTube videos containing climate mis- and disinformation. The videos had a total of 73.8 million views and all had featured ads.

YouTube spokesperson Michael Aciman told Engadget in response to those findings that the company is "constantly working" to remove content that violates its rules and welcomes third-party feedback to "help improve the accuracy of our enforcement over time."

"In 2021, we launched a new, industry-leading policy that explicitly prohibits ads from running on content promoting false claims about the existence and causes of climate change, which we designed in consultation with experts and authoritative sources on climate science," Aciman also said. "We do allow policy debate or discussions of climate-related initiatives, but when content crosses the line to climate change denial, we remove ads from serving on those videos.”

Meanwhile, Callum Hood, head of research at the Center for Countering Digital Hate, part of the CAAD coalition, said at the time that "despite Google's green grandstanding, its ads continue to fuel the climate denial industry."

"Whether it's taking cash to target users with climate disinformation, or running ads that make climate denial content profitable, the company is selling out," Hood added. "Tech companies make big promises on hate and misinformation because they know it's hard to see if they've kept them. We need to force Google to open up the black box of its advertising business."

Voting rights groups raise alarm about House GOP introducing 'Big Lie bill'

Voting rights advocates across the United States on Monday responded with alarm to Republicans introducing what its backers called "the most conservative election integrity bill to be seriously considered" in the U.S. House of Representatives in decades.

Dubbed the "Big Lie Bill" by critics, the American Confidence in Elections (ACE) Act is spearheaded by Committee on House Administration Chair Bryan Steil (R-Wis.) and includes nearly 50 standalone bills from the chamber's GOP members.

The Declaration for American Democracy (DFAD), a coalition of over 260 groups, said in a statement it was "deeply concerned" about the bill, warning that "the benign-sounding name of this legislation cloaks an extremist, anti-voter effort to increase the role of megadonors in our elections and encourage deliberate barriers to make it harder for eligible voters to cast their ballot."

"This bill would amplify the influence of corporations and billionaires by raising contribution limits and reducing reporting and transparency requirements, opening the floodgates to even more secret money in our elections," DFAD said. "Increasing the role of big money donors in our politics prevents Congress from taking action on the issues that matter most to Americans, such as healthcare, reproductive rights, gun safety, and the environment."

"The ACE Act would disenfranchise millions of voters by encouraging restrictive anti-voter policies that have a disproportionate impact on Black, Indigenous, young, and new American voters," the coalition continued, stressing that widespread U.S. voter fraud doesn't exist. "The bill would be a huge federal government overstep into the governance of Washington D.C., overturning laws that have been enacted to expand and strengthen democracy in the district."

The leftist think tank Dēmos tweeted that "the anti-voter ACE Act is an extremist power grab that would overturn laws that strengthen democracy in D.C. and open the floodgates to secret money. District residents deserve self-determination. The only people cheering this bill are billionaires and corporations."

Fellow coalition members—including Indivisible, NextGen America, and Public Citizen—and other critics also took aim at the GOP bill.

Steil introduced the bill during a field hearing for the committee he leads in Atlanta. During that event and in an opinion piece for the Washington Examiner, the panel chair heralded the Georgia GOP's Senate Bill 202—a sweeping measure passed in 2021 that led to a "staggering" increase in voter suppression, according to a Mother Jones analysis.

"Many of the bill's requirements would replicate Georgia's laws, which already ban outside election funding, require voter ID, and prohibit noncitizen voting," The Atlanta Journal-Constitutionreported Monday, noting that the state's Republicans enacted S.B. 202 in response to right-wing complaints about former President Donald Trump's loss in 2020.

The federal proposal comes as the twice-impeached, twice-indicted former president leads the crowded field of candidates for the GOP's 2024 presidential nomination—despite arguments that Trump's "Bie Lie" that the 2020 election was stolen from him incited the January 6, 2021 insurrection, so under the 14th Amendment, he is barred from holding public office again.

The Republican nominee is widely expected to face President Joe Biden, who is seeking reelection. The AJC pointed out that "the bill's rollout in Georgia, a swing state that... Biden won by fewer than 12,000 votes in 2020, creates a contrast between the two political parties ahead of another presidential election year."

When Democrats narrowly controlled both chambers of Congress early last year, right-wing Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin (W.Va.) joined with then-Democratic Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.)—who has since become an Independent—to help the GOP block the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act, a package designed to boost federal protections, limit dark money in politics, and restore the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Now, the Republicans have a divided majority in the House, while Democrats still have a slim advantage in the Senate, making it highly unlikely that any election-related legislation will make it to Biden's desk for the rest of this congressional session. Still, opponents of the ACE Act urged federal lawmakers to come out against it.

"Congress must reject these efforts to disenfranchise voters and worsen the problem of big money in politics," DFAD said. "To truly increase confidence in our elections, Congress should pass popular, common-sense reforms like those in the Freedom to Vote Act in order to reduce the influence of big money out of politics, ensure our freedom to vote, and guarantee that congressional districts are drawn to give fair representation for all."

"No matter our color, party, or ZIP code," the coalition added, "we all deserve to live in a democracy that represents, reflects, and responds to all of us."

Some Democrats in Congress are speaking out, including U.S. Rep. Nikema Williams, who represents Georgia's 5th District, which includes much of Atlanta.

"Extreme MAGA Republicans are at it again: this time attempting to obstruct voting rights to appease extremist election deniers," she tweeted. "S.B. 202 led to the biggest racial turnout gap in decades and they want to Copy+Paste at the federal level."

Democratic members of the Committee on House Administration declared Monday that "today's hearing is an attempt to appease election deniers."

"President Biden won the 2020 election. The election was secure. The results were accurate. It is undisputable," the panel's Democrats added. "No anti-voting, pro-corruption, #BigLieBill can change that."


'Nothing short of outrageous': Attorneys for youth climate plaintiffs blast Biden DOJ

Nearly eight years since 21 young Americans launched a landmark federal climate lawsuit against the U.S. government, their lawyers this week called out President Joe Biden's administration for trying to get the case dismissed using recycled arguments.

In a Friday statement responding to the U.S. Department of Justice's most recent push to have Juliana v. United States dismissed, Andrea Rodgers, one of the Our Children's Trust attorneys for the youth plaintiffs, charged that "the DOJ's conduct throughout the course of this case has been nothing short of outrageous."

Her comments came as the world has faced record-shattering heat throughout the week that bolstered demands for climate action.

"As children all around this country experience unprecedented temperatures, deadly wildfire smoke, and catastrophic storms, the government fiddles and tries to prevent these young plaintiffs from presenting evidence in open court as to how they are being harmed by their government's national fossil fuel-based energy system," Rodgers said. "It is our hope and expectation that the courts will see through the DOJ's tactics and ensure that this constitutional case gets to trial immediately."

First filed in August 2015, the suit claims that through the U.S. government's actions that contribute to the climate emergency, it has violated young people's constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property, and failed to protect essential public trust resources.

Throughout the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations, Juliana has faced various hurdles—leading up to early last month, when U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken ruled that the case could proceed to trial on an amended complaint.

"The United States government and its Department of Justice... have sought not justice under the rule of law, but to 'kill the Juliana case' no matter its legal merit."

Juliana plaintiff Nathan Baring said at the time that "our policymakers, legal scholars, and, most importantly, our judiciary, must now heed Judge Aiken's words that 'when government conduct catastrophically harms American citizens, the judiciary is constitutionally required to perform its independent role."

Meanwhile, in late June, the Biden administration ignored public pressure to stop fighting the case and filed another motion to dismiss it, just after the conclusion of the nation's the first-ever children's constitutional climate trial. Our Children's Trust represents the youth in that case, Held v. State of Montana, as well as the Juliana plaintiffs.

Attorneys with Our Children's Trust and Gregory Law Group began their Thursday response to the recent dismissal request by declaring that "for eight years and across three presidential administrations, the United States government and its Department of Justice (DOJ) have sought not justice under the rule of law, but to 'kill the Juliana case' no matter its legal merit."

"The U.S. DOJ has used every rare legal tool, more times than in any other case in history, to silence the constitutional claims of 21 of our nation's youth," the document notes. "Throughout the years of their failure, defendants have been unwilling to accept the standing and valid claims of these young people and previous rulings that this meritorious case should proceed to trial."

"While they have been seeking to foil Juliana, every single administration has simultaneously expanded the United States' fossil fuel energy system, thereby making this nation the largest producer of fossil fuels on Earth, exacerbating the climate crisis, and intensifying the constitutional injuries of these young plaintiffs," the filing continues. "Defendants' current motion to dismiss contravenes prior decisions of this court and the 9th Circuit, as well as President Biden's own executive orders and commitments these defendants have made to the American people, and especially its youth."

Urging the court to deny the DOJ's "rinse-and-repeat" motion, the lawyers argued that "this case involves an emergency of epic proportions: it is time for the United States to stand trial for creating an 'environmental apocalypse' and putting these youth's lives, health, and safety in jeopardy in intentional violation of the U.S. Constitution."

'The history of social change is also a history of disruption': experts

When two campaigners with the climate protest group Just Stop Oil threw confetti onto a tennis court at the Wimbledon championship in London on Wednesday, the action—like others by Just Stop Oil in recent months—sparked a renewed debate about the effectiveness of disruptive demonstrations.

"As always, Just Stop Oil's actions have done nothing to further their cause," claimed one public affairs consultant.

A new survey of 120 experts on social movements, however, found on Friday that nearly seven in 10 academics say disruptive protest tactics are "at least quite important" to the success of a movement, particularly if the protesters' demands—in the case of Just Stop Oil, climate action—already have widespread support.

Although interrupted tennis matches; stalled traffic caused by Just Stop Oil's "slow march" through London, which is now in its 12th week; and soup cans thrown at glass-covered art as in another high-profile protest by the group last year have befuddled and frustrated observers, the study by Apollo Surveys and the protest think tank Social Change Lab found that disruptive tactics do not, by and large, harm a group's ability to effect change.

"We were really struck by the contradiction between what the public and media say about disruptive protests and what academics said," James Özden, director of Social Change Lab, told The Guardian. "The experts who study social movements not only believe that strategic disruption can be an effective tactic, but that it is the most important tactical factor for a social movement's success."

A poll by YouGov in February—four months after Just Stop Oil garnered international attention, including outrage, for its soup can protest—found that 78% of British people believed disruptive demonstrations make it less likely that protesters will be successful in their cause.

The new survey of experts shows that "we shouldn't take people's first reactions as the indicator of an effective protest," Özden told The Guardian.

The experts were also asked about factors that harm protests movements. More than 70% said that internal conflicts and infighting can hinder a group's ability to achieve its goals, and 67% said a lack of clear political objectives can harm the movement.

Only 36% said that objectives deemed "too radical" are harmful to a group's success, and 44% said an unwillingness to compromise can stand in the way of protesters' agenda.

"Whether we like it or not, the history of social change is also a history of political contestation and disruption," said Bart Cammaerts, a professor of politics and communication at the London School of Economics, in response to the survey. "Disruption of everyday life is often the best way to receive media attention, generate visibility for a cause, and above all to push political and economic elites to compromise and accept change, if only to protect their own interests."

The results suggested that a multi-pronged effort to effect change—including letter-writing campaigns, legal protests that have the approval of law enforcement, and disruptive protests like those of Just Stop Oil and Extinction Rebellion—are needed to push for climate action and other policy changes.

Both legal protests and disruptive actions were rated highly by the experts as tactics that have a positive effect on "movement-building" and sparking "higher salience in public discourse."

In response to the survey results, Extinction Rebellion co-founder Roger Hallam recalled an interaction he had with an official at Kings College after he staged a disruptive protest to pressure the institution to divest from fossil fuels.

Others pointed out that highly-regarded, historic protest movements such as the fight for women's voting rights and the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s had their own disruptive elements.

"There are two strands to civil resistance," James Skeet, a spokesperson for Just Stop Oil, toldThe Guardian. "One is disruption and the next is dialogue. Time and again, we see that public disruption is necessary to spark the conversations that result in much needed political pressure."

10 years after Supreme Court gutted voting rights, advocates urge Congress to reverse damage

Since the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its ruling in Shelby County v. Holder exactly 10 years ago Sunday, at least 29 states have enacted nearly 100 restrictive laws including many that are racially discriminatory, according to an analysis by the Brennan Center for Justice.

The nonpartisan law and policy think tank said Friday that at least one-third of the voting restrictions—29 of them—passed in the last decade were enacted in 11 states which would have been subject to preclearance, the anti-discrimination rule that provided crucial protections as part of the 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA) before Shelby was decided.

Under preclearance, jurisdictions that had histories of barring people from voting based on their race were required to get federal approval before introducing new voting policies.

"Without this guardrail, voters lost a bulwark against discriminatory voting policies, and states previously subject to preclearance were free to implement discriminatory restrictions on voting access without advance checks," wrote Jasleen Singh and Sara Carter at the Brennan Center. "Many states did exactly that. Along with a prior decision narrowly interpreting constitutional protections for voting rights, Shelby County also sent a message to the nation that the federal courts would no longer play their historic role as a robust protector of voting rights."

"Since the 2020 election, 20 states passed 32 laws restricting mail voting access. Overall, 22 states passed 41 such laws since Shelby County. Some of these new restrictions have a clear racially discriminatory impact."

Texas wasted no time in announcing that a strict voter ID law, previously blocked by preclearance, would go into effect the same day that Shelby was handed down. Similar restrictions, which have been found to have a disproportionate effect on low-income voters and people of color, followed in at least nine states including Mississippi, Alabama, and North Carolina.

Since 2020—when the coronavirus pandemic upended voting and Republicans spread baseless lies about so-called "voter fraud" after former President Donald Trump lost his bid for reelection—GOP state legislators have largely turned their focus to restricting measures that offer flexibility to voters, such as mail-in ballots, said the Brennan Center.

"Since the 2020 election, 20 states passed 32 laws restricting mail voting access. Overall, 22 states passed 41 such laws since Shelby County," wrote Singh and Carter. "Some of these new restrictions have a clear racially discriminatory impact."

"For example," they added, "the Brennan Center studied a 2021 Texas law requiring a voter to include their driver's license number or the last four digits of their social security number on mail ballot applications and mail ballots and requiring the number to match the individual’s voter file data. During Texas's March 2022 primary, thousands of mail ballots and mail ballot applications were rejected, disproportionately cast by Latino, Asian, and Black voters."

A number of state legislatures have also taken advantage of the Shelbyruling as they have drawn new district maps.

Sherrilyn Ifill, former president of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and a senior fellow at the Ford Foundation, said Sunday that she knew in 2013 that the Shelby ruling was "catastrophic," but did not predict that the Republican Party would "turn voter suppression into part of its national policy."

Before 2013, said Democracy Docket, which offers analysis and expert commentary on voting rights, the U.S. Department of Justice had blocked more than 3,000 proposed voter suppression laws under the VRA.

The Brennan Center pointed out that within its ruling in 2013, the Supreme Court stated that Congress could pass a new "coverage formula" to determine which jurisdictions would be covered by a preclearance provision.

"And it should," wrote Singh and Carter, "by passing the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act to restore the Voting Rights Act to its full strength, as well as the Freedom to Vote Act to set nondiscriminatory baseline national standards for voting and elections."

In an op-ed at Newsweek on Sunday, U.S. Rep. Terri Sewell (D-Ala.) wrote that another voting rights-related ruling by the Supreme Court earlier this month, Allen v. Milligan, was "energizing" as the high court affirmed that Alabama had racially gerrymandered its electoral map.

However, she said, "we cannot rely on this Supreme Court, or the courts generally, to consistently protect our freedom to vote. We must, together, act."

In addition to passing the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the Freedom to Vote Act, she wrote, "we must also engage in robust voter education and outreach efforts, empowering communities with knowledge and resources to help overcome anti-voting barriers."

While Ifill said she did not predict the extent to which the GOP would go to stop marginalized communities from voting, she "also did not predict the extraordinary determination of voters, who, even at the height of a deadly global pandemic refused to be bowed," she said. "That they would stand in line and risk their very lives to vote, despite efforts of Republicans and the indifference of the Supreme Court.

"The Shelby decision was catastrophic, yes," she added. "But we didn't give in and we won't give in. We will find a way to overcome every obstacle to our right to participate as first class citizens in American political life. We will vote and organize and litigate, and legislate until we win."

'Part of a movement': Jill Stein to help Cornel West build 'people-powered' presidential campaign

Former Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein has signed on to support Dr. Cornel West's 2024 campaign, CNN reports.

The former Harvard professor and long time civil rights activist announced his Third-Party White House bid earlier this month, in which he noted he will run for the People's Party.

However, according to the report, West "quickly broke off from that group, which has limited campaign infrastructure amid concerns about ballot access, to join the Greens and seek their nomination."

READ MORE: The 'No Labels' agenda is more disturbing than you know

The 2024 hopeful noted, "Any candidacy to run the empire, in order to dismantle the empire, has to be part of a movement."

Regarding Stein's plan to assist the former professor, CNN reports:

Her involvement will likely rankle Democrats who say her candidacy siphoned progressive votes from Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton during the 2016 general election – a claim she has always dismissed. In the key swing states of Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, Stein's vote total exceeded Donald Trump's narrow victory margins. Still, it is unclear whether Stein voters would have turned out for Clinton had the Green nominee not been on the ballot.

"I'm a transition coordinator helping his campaign move from its previous People's Party context into the Green Party and developing his team and the infrastructure that he needs to run a full-powered, people-powered campaign," Stein said.

"It was really, I think, clear to everyone that Cornel needed to be in a campaign infrastructure that could make this campaign as big as the American people need it to be. We just began the transition at that point, and we are close to moving most of our critical infrastructure and really getting down to work."

READ MORE: Democrats fear a 'bipartisan' 3rd-party ticket could give Trump a victory in 2024

CNN's full report is available at this link.

The angry sports star who was a milestone between Jack Johnson and Brittney Griner

Jim Brown was a monster, not only as a wrecking-ball running back on the football field but also as a prime example of an ever more popular obsession with people (mostly men) whose admirable achievements are shaded by despicable behavior (mostly directed at women). He died last month at 87 and his obituaries, along with various appraisals of his life, tended to treat the bad stuff as an inevitable, if unfortunate, expression of the same fierce intensity that made him such a formidable football player and civil rights activist.

This story originally appeared on TomDispatch.

Often missed, however, was something no less important: what a significant figure he was in the progress of the Black athlete from exploited gladiator — enslaved men were the first pro athletes in America — to the sort of independent sports entrepreneur emerging today. Brown was a critical torchbearer and role model on the century-long path between the initial Black heavyweight champion, Jack Johnson, who went to jail for his “unforgivable blackness,” and one of the greatest basketball players ever, LeBron James, who was the first Black athlete to successfully create his own narrative from high school on.

Jim Brown didn’t control his narrative until 1966. By then, he had already spent nine years in pro football, retiring at the peak of his sports career in what was then both condemned and acclaimed as manly Black defiance. In doing so, he presaged Muhammad Ali’s refusal to be drafted during the Vietnam War and the Black-power salutes of protest offered by medal-winning runners Tommie Smith and John Carlos as the Star-Spangled Banner began to play at the Mexico City Olympics of 1968.

A Life Demanding Study

A year after retiring from football to concentrate on his movie roles, Brown organized “the Cleveland Summit” in which the leading Black athletes of that time, including basketball’s Kareem Abdul Jabbar (then known as Lew Alcindor), debated whether they should support Muhammad Ali’s refusal to join the Army. Their positive decision, based on Ali’s in-person defense of his antiwar moral beliefs, was important to so many Americans’ acceptance of his sincerity. It was also a glimmer — as yet to be fully realized — of the potential collective power of Black athletes. And it was all due to how much Brown was respected among his peers. His close friend Jabbar, an important voice in his own right, has written that “Jim’s lifelong pursuit of civil rights, regardless of the personal and professional costs… illuminated the country.“

And that’s probably more than you can say for Miles Davis, Ernest Hemingway, Pablo Picasso, or Roman Polanski, among the dozens of male stars of one sort or another whose lives have been reevaluated in the wake of the #MeToo movement and a question it raises: “Can I love the art [sport] and hate the artist [athlete]?”

As Nation magazine sports editor and Brown biographer Dave Zirin has pointed out, “Brown’s life calls for more than genuflection or dismissal; it demands study.”

Indeed! Consider some of the countervailing pieces of evidence to his greatness. Although never convicted, Brown was accused of a number of acts of violence against women, which he, along with the male-dominated culture of his time, tended to dismiss as of no significance. In one notorious and oft-recounted incident, he was accused of throwing a woman off a second-floor balcony. He always denied it, claiming she fell while running away from him. Tellingly, when the victim declined to press charges, macho culture interpreted that as proof of his irresistible virility, an extension of his being, arguably, the all-time greatest football player ever (and he was thought to have been even better at lacrosse in college). His brutal style of play would later be reflected in his aggressive, independent style of business and everyday life.

That image gathered force when he was 30 and in London on the set of his second film, The Dirty Dozen. It was then that Cleveland Browns owner Art Modell threatened to fine him daily if he didn’t show up on time for pre-season football training, which was soon to begin. Brown, then one of the sport’s major stars, eventually responded by simply quitting football.

It was perceived as a battle of wills. Modell was usually characterized as a boss always operating in the best interests of his team or (though this was rarer in those days) a classically uncompromising, deeply entitled Big Whitey plantation owner. And Brown was either seen as a defiant Black man, ungrateful for his celebrity and money, or like Ali, as a warrior prince of Black manhood. As in the heavyweight champion’s case, the reality was, of course, far more complex.

On Raquel’s Team

At the time, Brown was conflicted about his choices. In May 1966, as a sportswriter for the New York Times, I happened to be in London covering an Ali fight and had been invited to the Dirty Dozen movie set. Brown confided to me that the film was far behind schedule and there was no way they’d finish shooting his part so he could make pre-season practice in a timely fashion. He had, in fact, hoped to play one more season, his tenth, but couldn’t imagine bailing on the production before the film was wrapped. There were just too many people dependent on him, he told me, and so the Browns would have to wait. After all, it wasn’t as if he were going to miss regular-season games.

But Modell’s insistence that he return immediately (echoed by the media) eventually pushed him into a corner. And Hollywood simply seemed like the better choice — a potentially longer career, more money, and less physical damage. Indeed, Brown would go on to succeed as the first Black action hero in mainstream movies. His on-screen interracial sex scene with Welch in the 1969 film 100 Rifles would also be considered a Hollywood first.

His football retirement, which began as expedience, would only enhance his macho aura, which, for better or worse, was all too real. That same year, in Toronto (also to cover an Ali fight), I found myself having dinner at a Chinese restaurant with Brown, Carl Stokes, soon to be the first Black mayor of Cleveland, and comedian and activist Dick Gregory, whose autobiography I had written.

It was a lively, friendly meal until the check arrived. The waiter, an elderly Chinese man, set it in front of me. Stokes and Gregory burst out laughing and began bantering about the racism implicit in the poorest of the four of us getting the bill. But Brown suddenly leaped up, yelling at the waiter and grabbing for him. The other two managed to push him back into his chair, where he then sat, muttering to himself. Eventually, he did manage to see the humor in the situation, but initially he had been deeply offended, and that simmering rage of his (always a potential prelude to violence) seemed ever ready to boil over.

He was in his eighties the last time I saw him, moving slowly on a cane, and yet he still seemed like one of the two scariest athletes I had ever covered, men whose baleful glares rose so much more quickly than their smiles. (The other was former heavyweight boxing champion Sonny Liston.)

It should be no surprise that Brown’s contributions to advancing Black equality were of a piece with his complex life. After all, he often derided civil rights marches as nothing more than “parades” and his best efforts were directed toward lending a hand to the economic advancement of Black small businesses and marginalized former gang members.

What always seemed like a paradoxical conservative streak in him was, in fact, essential Brown, the mood of a man who believed that Black progress would never come from protests or demonstrations — they always seemed like a form of begging to him — but from the power of money, of muscling your way into the marketplace and buying into the system. He believed, in other words, in economic power above all else and, for what must have seemed to him like short-term pragmatic reasons, would end up allying briefly with two otherwise unlikely presidential figures — that football ultra-fan Richard Nixon and then former football franchise owner Donald Trump. Brown even went so far as to defend Trump when iconic civil-rights activist Congressman John Lewis called him an illegitimate president.

Forebears and Descendants

Brown’s unyielding rage evoked the earliest celebrity Black athlete who rattled white folks: Jack Johnson. Although that boxer’s style was different from Brown’s — living in the Jim Crow era, he flamboyantly derided his opponents and flaunted white girlfriends and wives — Johnson also offered a version of intimidating masculinity that led all too many white men to call for a “great white hope” to defeat him. It took the self-effacing, self-destructive Joe Louis, who carefully concealed his affairs with white movie stars, to calm their insecurities and become an acceptable hero for whites.

In recent years, the only athlete who’s come close to Brown’s steadfast individualism in the face of racism was Colin Kaepernick, whose insistence on kneeling during the pledge of allegiance before National Football League games got a distinctly mixed response from Brown. He liked the young quarterback, he said, but as an American couldn’t abide the desecration of the flag (another instance of Brown’s late-in-life cluelessness).

As Zirin aptly put it in his biography Jim Brown: Last Man Standing, his seeming paradoxes were those of a “flawed” figure who was “heroic but not a hero.”

LeBron and Brittany

LeBron James, Brown’s current successor as the model of a modern Black athlete, has proven a far more consistent figure. Already marked as the future of basketball in high school, he’s orchestrated his career in a remarkable fashion, moving to better teams and dictating his own terms in the process. Along the way, he’s also built up his business interests — always with a core of hometown friends — and expressed his opinions openly. While at the Miami Heat, he led his teammates in a protest against the shooting of an unarmed Black teenager, Trayvon Martin.

Not since the days of Muhammad Ali had such a big star been so willing to take such a controversial stand. The basketball superstar with whom LeBron is most often compared as a player, Michael Jordan, was known for avoiding anything that might harm the sale of his sneaker brand. LeBron on the other hand even called President Trump a “bum.”

He was indeed courageous, but of course, he could do that. Global capitalism had his back. It’s even more courageous to take a stand when true risk is involved. So, perhaps a hopeful harbinger of future athletic heroes — regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation — were the members of the predominantly Black Atlanta Dream team in the Women’s National Basketball Association (WNBA) who, in 2020, wore T-shirts endorsing Raphael Warnock, the Black Democratic opponent of Georgia Republican Senator Kelly Loeffler. It was a gutsy move, since Loeffler, a white woman who had disparaged the Black Lives Matter movement, just happened to be the Dream’s co-owner.

It was, in fact, particularly gutsy because WNBA players are among the most vulnerable in big league sports, playing in a relatively small league that pays relatively low salaries — the average is $147,745 while eight players in the National Basketball Association make $40 million or more annually. That’s why so many of those women play internationally during their off-season. It’s why WNBA star Brittney Griner was en route to a Russian team when she was arrested and detained for 10 months after vaporizer cartridges with less than a gram of hash oil were found in her luggage. (She was finally released in a prisoner exchange last December.)

Although widely admired as warm and friendly, before her incarceration in Russia, Griner seemed to have something of Jim Brown in her personality. She was active with her Phoenix Mercury teammates in protests against the police murders of unarmed Black people and insisted that the national anthem should not be played before sporting events. Since returning from Russia, she’s been active in campaigns to release others who have been wrongfully detained. A lesbian, Griner and her partner were arrested in 2015 for assault and disorderly conduct in a domestic violence case. They subsequently married and divorced.

She may well be LeBron’s successor in the evolution of the Black athlete. At the least, her mission statement, as described in a 2019 interview with People magazine, is both humble and complete. She said: “People tell me I’m going to break the barrier and trailblaze. I just kind of look at it like, I’m just trying to help out, I’m just trying to make it not as tough for the next generation.”

These days, that’s heroic.

Robert Lipsyte is a TomDispatch regular and a former sports and city columnist for the New York Times. He is the author, among other works, of SportsWorld: An American Dreamland.

Chief Justice John Roberts’ anti-abortion activist wife may have 'influenced' his 'judicial decisions'

As the United States Supreme Court remains under deep scrutiny over issues of ethics, "questions of conflict of interest" are revealing details of the justices' pasts, Business Insider reports.

Jane Sullivan Roberts, lawyer and wife of Chief Justice John Roberts, is highly revered in the anti-abortion advocacy space, having served in leadership roles for Feminists for Life — a group that aims to "make abortion unthinkable" — from 1995-1999.

Insider reports:

In the year leading up to John Roberts' nomination to the Supreme Court by then-President George W. Bush, many social conservatives were initially skeptical of the judge who seemed to have a lack of public opinions and speeches outlining his views, according to a 2005 New York Times profile following his nomination.

Jane Roberts' work leading a top anti-abortion organization in the 1990s and her continued legal work on behalf of that nonprofit helped, in part, muster conservative support for her husband's Supreme Court nomination, according to research shared with Insider by the watchdog group 'Accountable.US'.

READ MORE: How overturning Roe v. Wade led to the Supreme Court’s 'obvious departure from collegiality of years past'

Former President George W. Bush confirmed Roberts in 2005, and almost two decades later, according to Insider, the justice "voted to uphold a Mississippi law that prohibits nearly all abortions after 15 weeks in Jackson v. Dobbs, a decision that led to the 2021 reversal of Roe v. Wade and the dismantling of 50 years of abortion protections and precedence."

Because Jane Roberts halted her work with the group prior to her husband's confirmation, Scott Lemieux, a professor of political science at the University of Washington and Supreme Court and constitutional law law expert told the publication her "past anti-abortion leadership likely doesn't rise to the level of being a bonafide conflict of interest."

Furthermore, Insider reports:

The suggestion then that Jane Roberts' anti-abortion work may have influenced her husband's judicial decisions on abortion cases is complicated by the fact that John Roberts did not ultimately join his fellow conservative justices in voting to overturn Roe v. Wade entirely, instead lending his support only to upholding the law at the center of Jackson v. Dobbs.

In his concurring opinion, John Roberts made clear that he felt the Supreme Court's five conservative justices went too far in overturning Roe v. Wade, calling it a 'serious jolt' to the legal system while advocating for a 'narrower' decision on the matter.

Lemieux commented "If there was something about his wife's activism that made him particularly biased on that issue, it's pretty strange that, if anything, he's moved to the left on abortion over time.

READ MORE: Violence against abortion providers has 'skyrocketed' since Roe was overturned: report

However, he added, "Ultimately, the Supreme Court is a powerful institution and all-powerful institutions deserve scrutiny," Lemieux told Insider. "It's not entitled to a fixed level of legitimacy."

Similarly, Kyle Herrig, president of progressive advocacy group Accountable.US, told Insider, "It's reasonable to ask if Jane Roberts' leadership and pro bono counsel for a right-wing anti-choice group with prior business before the Court is a conflict of interest for Chief Justice Roberts," Herrig, the Accountable.US president, said.

"Every federal judge is bound to an ethics code requiring them to avoid behavior that so much as looks improper — except for Supreme Court justices. Chief Justice Roberts has the power to change that, but so far he hasn't shown the courage."

READ MORE: Here are 5 damning reasons why the US Supreme Court’s reputation has sunk to historic lows

Business Insider's full report is available at this link.

Florida advocates fight for abortion rights ballot initiative 'without interference from politicians'

Abortion rights groups, led by Planned Parenthood are aiming to get abortion rights on the ballot, The Washington Post reports.

First reported by Politico, the initiative "would roll back one of" Florida Governor Ron "DeSantis’ signature policies by allowing abortion until a fetus is viable at about 24 weeks of pregnancy."

The announcement also comes just a few weeks after the GOP governor passed a six-week abortion ban.

READ MORE: 'I do not like this bill': Meet the Florida Republicans who are defying DeSantis on 6-week abortion ban

The Post reports:

[The initiative] would allow voters to decide whether the state should allow abortions until a fetus is viable, which is generally considered to be around 23 or 24 weeks. The groups, which also include the ACLU of Florida and Women's Voices of Southwest Florida, are expected to announce the multimillion-dollar push to get the initiative on the ballot at an event in Tallahassee on Monday.

Deputy Political Director of the ACLU of Florida told The Post "DeSantis' abortion bans — the 15-week and the six-week measures — do not represent what mainstream Floridians want."

She added, :What the groups are looking to achieve with the proposed ballot initiative is to restore the access Floridians had to safe abortions in their state before the events of last year."

According to The Post, spokespeople for the organizations involved said in a statement Friday that citizens of the Sunshine State "want the freedom to make their own personal health care decisions without interference from politicians."

READ MORE: 'Make him own this': Florida’s 'atrocious' abortion ban could derail DeSantis’ presidential hopes

Latshaw noted, "I get the sense that, because this is a ballot initiative, it feels as though … it's uncharted territory. But it's the access to health care that we’ve always enjoyed. This just gives Floridians the chance to show that they value it."

READ MORE: Democratic leaders arrested during Florida protest over abortion ban

The Washington Post's full report is available at this link (subscription required). Politico's report is here.

To end 'disgrace' of poverty wages Sanders’ bill would raise federal minimum to $17

Decrying the "national disgrace" of poverty wages in the world's richest country, Sen. Bernie Sanders on Thursday introduced legislation that would raise the federal minimum wage to $17 an hour over a period of five years.

Sanders (I-Vt.), the chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, lamented that Congress hasn't raised the federal minimum wage in more than a decade, leaving tens of millions of workers with what the senator described as "starvation wages."

"Now is the time to raise the minimum wage," Sanders (I-Vt.) said at a Capitol Hill press conference alongside union leaders and service workers. "Let's be clear: This is not a radical idea. The overwhelming majority of Americans support raising the minimum wage to a living wage."

"It is not acceptable today that nearly 35 million American workers earn less than $17 an hour," the senator added.

Sanders pledged to push his legislation "as quickly and as hard" as possible in the Senate, where the bill faces long odds given likely opposition from several members of the chamber's Democratic caucusand every Republican. The Senate HELP Committee will hold a mark-up hearing for the new legislation on June 14, Sanders announced Thursday.

The full text of the bill is not yet available.

Mary Kay Henry, president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), said during Thursday's press conference that "we are going to be watching any congressperson—senator or in the House—that dares to say that they are not going to vote yes for Senator Sanders' bill."

"They need to be held accountable at the ballot box," said Henry.

More than a decade has passed since Congress last raised the federal minimum wage, and efforts in recent years to enact a $15-an-hour wage floor nationally have fallen short amid opposition from the GOP, corporate-friendly Democrats, and the business lobby.

While some lawmakers are sure to balk at the idea of more than doubling the federal minimum wage, a working paper released this week showed that counties that have enacted large minimum wage increases have seen higher employment, higher earnings for workers, and lower inequality.

"Nobody in this country can survive on $7.25 an hour," Sanders said Thursday. "Maybe some of my colleagues in Congress might want to live for a month on seven-and-a-quarter an hour and see what that's like."

As Congress has failed to act, many states, cities, and counties across the U.S. have raised their minimum wages substantially, with progress continuing this year. According to a recent report by the National Employment Law Project, a record 86 U.S. jurisdictions are set to raise their minimum wages in 2023.

But 15 states have their minimum wages set at the federal floor of $7.25 an hour, according to the Economic Policy Institute's Minimum Wage Tracker, and five other states have no minimum wage laws—meaning the federal minimum applies.

"As it becomes more and more expensive to get by in America, $15 is no longer an adequate goal. We need to go higher to reflect what it actually costs to live in America."

In an analysis earlier this year, EPI estimated that "a worker in one of the 20 states with a $7.25 minimum wage is 46% more likely to make less than $15 an hour than a worker in the other 30 states or District of Columbia with higher minimum wages."

"There is no part of this country where even a single adult without children can achieve an adequate standard of living with a wage of less than $15 an hour," EPI noted. "With the lack of congressional action, the federal minimum wage has lost more than a third of its value since its inflation-adjusted high point of 1968."

Sanders said Thursday that with living costs rising across the country, a $15 minimum wage would still be insufficient—a point that supporters of the new legislation echoed.

"As it becomes more and more expensive to get by in America, $15 is no longer an adequate goal," Stephen Prince, vice chair of the Patriotic Millionaires, said in a statement. "We need to go higher to reflect what it actually costs to live in America. Sanders is right to revise his minimum wage push to $17 an hour to save workers across the country from further suffocation."

"On a larger scale, raising the minimum wage would give millions of people more money to buy more products and services from businesses around the country, which is good for our bottom lines," said Prince. "From a business standpoint, 60% of the country living paycheck to paycheck is unsustainable and precarious. Sanders' $17 minimum wage will change this reality and I’m all for it."

Young people from the U.S. travel to Cuba and break the siege

It’s a hot and crowded Tuesday morning in the Yoruba Cultural Center in Havana, and the air sticks to the skin. You can hear the fluttering of paper as people fan themselves, and a surprise blackout takes out the sound system with a flicker of the lights. And yet, 150 young organizers from the U.S. sit shoulder to shoulder, listening attentively to two leaders of the cultural movement in Cuba. They line up and down the hall with the hope of squeezing in their question—on climate change, on housing, on fighting racism, about hope in the future—before time is up.

This article was produced by Globetrotter.

This energy permeates through and drives the 2023 May Day Brigade: a sharp sense of curiosity honed by the responsibility of this historic undertaking. The International Peoples’ Assembly invited young grassroots activists from across the diversity of struggles in the U.S. to participate in a crucial exchange in Cuba, an experience deprived of them and their generation by the 60-year-old blockade. The largest group to travel in decades, this brigade is an intervention into the endless attempts of the United States to silence and strangle the successes of the Cuban socialist project. As Zuleica Romay, director of the Afro-American Studies program at Casa de las Américas, said in their morning panel, “Cuba is also a victim of its own success.”

And yet, these successes are contagious and hard-earned. On their very first day, these young people spoke to leaders pioneering the very sectors they fight to build back at home. Tenant organizers learned about the housing situation, as over 80 percent of Cubans are homeowners (the rest are on a path to ownership), but also the difficulty of building enough for a growing population burdened by the blockade. Black leaders asked about anti-racism efforts after 500 years of colonialism sowed the seeds of segregation and violence on the island. Those fighting for queer liberation in the U.S. learned about the historic Families Code, passed and edited by six million Cubans who proposed hundreds of thousands of changes. The breakthrough code spans all issues of the family unit from same-sex marriage to elder care, to surrogacy, to non-normative family structures. Abel Prieto, president of Casa de las Américas, told us: “There is something the U.S. government has never understood which is that something was planted here in Cuba, this principle of social justice, of people’s democracy, of equality, of people’s participation in the political process. And this has not been weakened.” Meanwhile, these young organizers repeatedly explain the current regression of trans rights in Florida as the state passes a broad ban on trans-affirming care—a ban that goes as far as stripping parental rights from those who support their trans children. Many in the crowd nod their heads in agreement.

Still, it is not lost on these young organizers that they have arrived in Cuba in a moment of profound economic crisis. As they admire the famous Cuban cars from the ’50s roll through Old Havana, they know how precious fuel is at this very moment, prevented by the blockade. Biden shows no sign of lifting the sanctions, nor taking the country off the State Sponsors of Terrorism list that prevents it from accessing the global financial system. It is this system of unilateral coercive measures that makes it almost impossible for young people to witness the achievements of a socialist process. It is U.S. foreign policy at its most irrational and its most deadly, as it continues its siege on Cuba. It has never been more urgent to lift the blockade, for the survival of the Cuban people, and for the future of the United States. These young organizers are fighting for a better world, and this first day is just a glimpse into a future with normal relations between the U.S. and this island just 90 miles away.

Author Bio: Manolo De Los Santos is the co-executive director of the People’s Forum and is a researcher at Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research. He co-edited, most recently, Viviremos: Venezuela vs. Hybrid War (LeftWord Books/1804 Books, 2020) and Comrade of the Revolution: Selected Speeches of Fidel Castro (LeftWord Books/1804 Books, 2021). He is a co-coordinator of the People’s Summit for Democracy.

Kate Gonzales is the editorial coordinator at 1804 Books. Born and raised in New York City, she has worked in development and education for arts and political organizations, and organized with grassroots movements in Hungary and New Jersey. Kate studied anthropology at Bard College, where she wrote her thesis on Filipino migrant nationalism.

Top LGBTQ Organization: 'Florida may not be a safe place to move or visit'

A top LGBTQ equal rights organization has issued an extensive and wide-ranging travel advisory for anyone considering moving or traveling to Florida.

Calling it an “unprecedented step,” Equality Florida says their travel advisory “comes after passage of laws that are hostile to the LGBTQ+ community, restrict access to reproductive health care, repeal gun safety laws and allow untrained, unpermitted carry, and foment racial prejudice.”

Equality Florida also warns that Republican Governor Ron DeSantis has “weaponized state agencies to impose sanctions against businesses large and small that disagree with his attacks on diversity, equity, and inclusion.”

READ MORE: ‘This Is Very Serious’: Judge Sanctions Fox News, Likely to Appoint ‘Special Master’ in Dominion $1.6 Billion Lawsuit

The advisory notes that “Florida has recently adopted a slate of hateful laws, and is fast-tracking additional measures that directly target the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals and basic freedoms broadly. Already, those policies have led Florida parents to consider relocating, prospective students to cross Florida colleges and universities off their lists, events and conferences to cancel future gatherings, and the United States military to offer redeployment for service members whose families are now unsafe in the state.”

Nadine Smith, Equality Florida’s co-founder and executive director adds, “As an organization that has spent decades working to improve Florida’s reputation as a welcoming and inclusive place to live work and visit, it is with great sadness that we must respond to those asking if it is safe to travel to Florida or remain in the state as the laws strip away basic rights and freedoms.”

“While losing conferences, and top students who have written off Florida threatens lasting damage to our state, it is most heartbreaking to hear from parents who are selling their homes and moving because school censorship, book bans and health care restrictions have made their home state less safe for their children.”

The travel advisory provides extensive detail and examples across multiple areas including: Assaults on Medical Freedom, Assaults on Academic Freedom, Censorship and Erasure of the LGBTQ Community, Assaults on Arts, Entertainment, and Sports Participation, Assaults on Business, Efforts to Foment Racial Prejudice, Repealing of Gun Safety Laws, and Attacks on Immigrant Communities.

READ MORE: ‘Fascism Plain and Simple’: Critics Blast Trump for Saying America’s ‘Biggest Problem’ Is Its Own ‘Sick Radical People

In response, WFTV reports Bryan Griffin, press secretary to Governor DeSantis, called the advisory a “political stunt.”

The Tallahassee Democrat reports Florida’s “Republican lawmakers have filed at least 18 bills that directly or indirectly target transgender Floridians and in some cases the broader LGBTQ community,” and cites “counts maintained by advocates.”

The newspaper also notes Equality Florida’s warning comes “days after Rep. Webster Barnaby, R-Deltona, compared transgender people to ‘mutants’, ‘demons’ and ‘imps,’during discussion of legislation that requires people to use public restrooms that correspond with their sex assigned at birth. It would effectively bar transgender people from facilities that match their gender identity. It also came a day after Senate lawmakers voted to amp up regulations on drag shows, something advocates fear could impact Pride festivals.”

Florida NAACP members last month “unanimously voted to ask the group’s national board to issue a travel advisory,” which Gov. DeSantis at the time labeled a “joke.”

Equality Florida notes that the “Florida Immigrant Coalition, a statewide immigrant rights coalition of 65 member organizations and over 100 allies, also issued a travel advisory today.”

READ MORE: ‘Espionage Act’: Expert Suggests Special Counsel Examining if Trump Was ‘Disseminating’ National Defense Information

'Silenced': Expelled Tennessee Dem says GOP House Speaker 'runs the Capitol like it’s his private palace'

Recently expelled Tennessee Democratic Rep. Justin Jones and Rep. Justin Pearson discussed during a Sunday Meet the Press interview the GOP House Speaker Cameron Sexton's strategy to silence the pair prior to their expulsion.

State Republican lawmakers ousted Jones and Pearson, who are both Black, from the House following their participation in a protest for gun reform following the recent Nashville Christian school mass shooting that left 6 people dead.

Democratic Rep. Gloria Johnson, who is white, joined the two in the protest, and was also up for expulsion — before lawmakers voted to allow her to keep her position.

READ MORE: Tennessee GOP lawmaker dismisses calls for stricter gun control despite Nashville school shooting

Meet the Press' Twitter account tweeted Sunday, "WATCH: Expelled Tenn. Democrat state Rep. @brotherjones_ discusses the House rules changes that led to his voting machine being turned off. 'The speaker ... runs the Capitol like it's his private palace.'"

During the interview, Chuck Todd noted Rep. Johnson mentioned during a separate interview the GOP "changed the rules since" asked Jones and Pearson joined the state legislature, before asking Jones to "explain the rules changes on expressing dissent on the House floor."

Jones replied, "They've limited debate to five minutes, but in reality — you ask one question, they'll spend five minutes answering it and then your time is up. You can't reclaim your time. Or the Speaker Cameron Sexton — and autocrat — will not even call on you and will cut off all debate."

The Fisk University graduate mentioned he and Pearson's voting machines were turned off when they supported the gun violence protest, which prevented the pair from voting on the House floor.

READ MORE: 'Gen Z don’t play': AOC says Tennessee’s 'fascism' is firing up young people

Regarding the GOPers refusal to hear what the Democratic lawmakers had to say, The Tennesseean reports Jones said, "I am able to speak because the people of my district sent me here. Speaker Sexton is not my constituent. Speaker Sexton is not a king. Speaker Sexton is not God, though he may want to be. I don’t know how many times the speaker has gaveled me out of order for simply doing my job as a representative."

During the Meet the Press interview, Jones emphasized, "There is no democracy in Tennessee. Tennessee is the most undemocratic state in the nation."

He continued, "Instead of responding to the grief and trauma of our community the House Speaker silenced us, even the day of our protest, and that's what led us to the well."

Watch the video below or at this link.

READ MORE: Kamala Harris visits Nashville to meet with 'Tennessee Three' after GOP expelled Black Dems

The Tennessean's full report is available at this link.

'Absolutely insane': Texas Governor Greg Abbott seeks pardon for man convicted of murdering BLM protester

Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott drew widespread condemnation from legal experts after he said Saturday that he is "working as swiftly" as the law allows to pardon a man who was convicted the previous day of murdering a racial justice protester in 2020.

Daniel Perry, a U.S. Army sergeant, was convicted by an Austin jury on Friday of murder and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon for the fatal shooting of 28-year-old Garrett Foster, an armed Air Force veteran participating in a Black Lives Matter protest in the Texas capital following George Floyd's murder by Minneapolis police.

After tweeting that he "might have to kill a few people on my way to work" as an Uber driver, Perry accelerated his car into a crowd of racial justice protesters in downtown Austin on July 25, 2020. As Foster, who was pushing his fiancée's wheelchair, approached Perry's vehicle carrying an AK-47 rifle in accordance with Texas law, Perry opened his window and shot Foster four times in the chest and abdomen with his .357 Magnum pistol. When asked by police if Foster had pointed his rifle at him, Perry admitted that he did not, but said that "I didn't want to give him a chance to aim at me."

After an eight-day trial and 17 hours of deliberation, the Austin jury rejected Perry's claim of self-defense. However, Abbott tweeted that "Texas has one of the strongest 'stand your ground' laws of self-defense that cannot be nullified by a jury or a progressive district attorney," a reference to Travis County District Attorney José Garza, a Democrat.

"Unlike the president or some other states, the Texas Constitution limits the governor's pardon authority to only act on a recommendation by the Board of Pardons and Paroles," Abbott wrote. "Texas law does allow the governor to request the Board of Pardons and Paroles to determine if a person should be granted a pardon. I have made that request and instructed the Board to expedite its review."

"I look forward to approving the board's pardon recommendation as soon as it hits my desk," he added.

Rick Cofer, a partner at the Austin law firm of Cofer & Connelly, notedthat "Garrett Foster was killed protesting the killing of George Floyd," and that "in 2022, the Texas Board of Pardons unanimously recommended that Floyd be pardoned for a drug charge, in which a crooked cop planted drugs."

"Facing pressure, Abbott got the board to yank the recommendation," Cofer added. "Now the man who killed Garrett Foster, while Foster protested George Floyd's murder, will be pardoned. George Floyd's pardon is still stuck with the Board of Pardons. If a fiction author wrote this, no one would believe it."

David Wahlberg, a former Travis County criminal court judge, said he has never heard of a case in which a governor sought to pardon a convicted felon before their verdict was appealed.

"I think it's outrageously presumptuous for someone to make a judgment about the verdict of 12 unanimous jurors without actually hearing the evidence in person," Wahlberg told the Austin American-Statesman.

Wendy Davis, an attorney and former Texas state lawmaker and Fort Worth city councilmember, called Abbott's move "nothing more than a craven political maneuver."

"Our democracy is imperiled when any branch of government moves to usurp another," Davis argued on Twitter. "And it's happening all over this country on a regular basis."

Abbott's announcement came less than 24 hours after Fox News opinion host Tucker Carlson sharply criticized the governor on his show, claiming that "there is no right of self-defense in Texas."

The governor also faced pressure from right-wing figures including Kyle Rittenhouse, who was acquitted of murder and other charges after he shot dead two racial justice protesters and wounded a third in Kenosha, Wisconsin in 2020.

Abbott has also threatened to "exonerate" 19 Austin police officers indicted for attacking and injuring Black Lives Matter protesters in 2020, asserting that "those officers should be praised for their efforts, not prosecuted."

Federal judges say Minnesota climate suit belongs in state court upsetting Koch and Exxon

Minnesota on Thursday scored a significant procedural win in a lawsuit seeking to hold Big Oil accountable for lying to consumers about the dangers of burning fossil fuels and thus worsening the deadly climate crisis.

In a unanimous ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit agreed with a lower court that the state's climate fraud lawsuit against the American Petroleum Institute, ExxonMobil, and Koch Industries can proceed in state court, where it was filed.

"This ruling is a major victory for Minnesota's efforts to hold oil giants accountable for their climate lies, and a major defeat for fossil fuel companies' attempt to escape justice," Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity, said in a statement.

"Big Oil companies have fought relentlessly to avoid facing the evidence of their climate fraud in state court, but once again judges have unanimously rejected their arguments," said Wiles. "After years of Big Oil's delay tactics, it's time for the people of Minnesota to have their day in court."

Fossil fuel corporations have known for decades that burning coal, oil, and gas generates planet-heating pollution that damages the environment and public health. But to prolong extraction and maximize profits, the industry launched a disinformation campaign to downplay the life-threatening consequences of fossil fuel combustion.

Dozens of state and local governments have filed lawsuits arguing that Big Oil's longstanding effort to sow doubt about the reality of anthropogenic climate change—and to minimize the fossil fuel industry's leading role in causing it—has delayed decarbonization of the economy, resulting in widespread harm.

Since 2017, the attorneys general of Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the District of Columbia, along with 35 municipalities in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, South Carolina, Washington, and Puerto Rico, have sued fossil fuel giants in an attempt to hold them financially liable for misleading the public about the destructive effects of greenhouse gas emissions from their products.

"Minnesota is not the first state or local government to file this type of climate change litigation," the Eighth Circuit declared Thursday. "Nor is this the first time" that fossil fuel producers have sought to shift jurisdiction over such suits from state courts to federal court, where they believe they will be more likely to avoid punishment.

"But our sister circuits rejected them in each case," the federal appeals court continued. "Today, we join them."

According to the Center for Climate Integrity, "Six federal appeals courts and 13 federal district courts have now unanimously ruled against the fossil fuel industry's arguments to avoid climate accountability trials in state courts."

Last week, the U.S. Department of Justice moved for the first time to support communities suing Big Oil by urging the U.S. Supreme Court to reject Exxon and Suncor Energy's request to review lower court rulings allowing a lawsuit from three Colorado communities to go forward in state court.

'You are welcome here': Minnesota passes bill to solidify status as a trans refuge state

Minnesota passed legislation Friday that would make the state as a place of refuge for transgender people, Valley News Live reports.

Per the Minnesota Reformer, the bill "would block other states' laws that are meant to ban or reduce access to gender-affirming care."

Democratic State Rep. Leigh Finke — and Minnesota's first transgender elected official, said, "To all those families across the United States that are afraid and wondering where they can go for help — Minnesota is saying we see you, we love you and you belong here."

READ MORE: Minnesota enshrines abortion as a 'fundamental right' as red states rage against reproductive choice

Valley News Live reports Finke further noted, "Right now our community really needs help. Gender-affirming care is healthcare. It is safe, evidence based, developmentally appropriate, and life-saving healthcare."

Despite anti-trans protestors shouting derogatory terms at trans activists ahead of the House session — calling them "groomers and pedophiles," lawmakers proceeded to pass the "life-saving" bill.

House Majority Leader Jamie Long said, "We are going to say 'You are welcome here' today. This is a good day."

Regarding the legislation, Minnestota Reformer reports:

The bill prohibits people from other states from being arrested for giving or receiving gender-affirming care, even if a state has made the care illegal. The legislation also changes state custody statutes to include access to gender-affirming care as a consideration for custody disputes and gives Minnesota courts jurisdiction over some cases.

READ MORE: 'State power as an apparatus of cruelty': MN Gov. proves his state sets standard for protecting trans rights

Valley News Live's full report is available at this link. Minnesota Reformer's report is here.

'There's not a choice': Willow oil project approval threatens President Joe Biden's climate reputation

President Joe Biden's climate reputation is now at risk in many activist's eyes over his administration's decision to greenlight Willow, "a large-scale oil drilling proposal in Alaska," the Associated Press (AP) reports.

California college student and climate organizer, Elise Joshi, was hopeful in 2022 after she visited Washington, D.C. to witness the president "host thousands of supporters" in recognition of "groundbreaking legislation targeting climate change."

The Gen Z for Change leader will soon visit the nation's capital again to protest the president's move.

READ MORE: Democrats to Biden: 'reject Willow now and protect the Arctic'

AP reports:

The president made fighting global warming a central part of his agenda, and White House officials are quick to defend efforts to put the United States on track for steep emissions reductions in the coming years.

But the decision on Willow has alienated supporters, particularly young activists predisposed to skepticism about compromise and incrementalism, at the same time Biden is planning to announce his campaign for reelection.

"The president kept his word where he can by law," White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said, noting the president "has done more on climate change than any other president in history."

Regarding social media backlash, AP reports:

Interior Secretary Deb Haaland's video explaining the Willow decision was viewed more than 100,000 times on Twitter as of Thursday afternoon.

But Joshi's post on TikTok, which described Biden as having 'just slapped young people in the face,' was viewed more than 860,000 times.

A TikTok video by environmentalist Alex Haraus was viewed more than 270,000 times.

READ MORE: 'Disturbing and disappointing': President Joe Biden slammed for approving Willow Oil Project

“There is disappointment. There is anger. There is frustration," Lori Lodes, executive director of Climate Power, said.

However, she also noted, "what's happened on climate in the past year is nothing short of revolutionary," which, according to AP, includes "hundreds of billions of financial incentives for clean energy in last year’s legislation, and Republicans have refused to confront the problem of global warming."

According to Fortune, the project has received some political support in-state.

Fortune reports:

ConocoPhillips Alaska's Willow project could produce up to 180,000 barrels of oil a day, create up to 2,500 jobs during construction and 300 long-term jobs, and generate billions of dollars in royalties and tax revenues for the federal, state and local governments, the company says.

READ MORE: 'Irreparable and downright shameful environmental destruction': Groups demand Biden scrap Arctic drilling

Chief Policy Impact officer at the Natural Resources Defense Council, Christy Goldfuss, told AP, "the problem for Biden is that other efforts to reduce emissions, such as raising vehicle mileage standards, have not received the same attention as Willow."

She noted, "We've seen time and time again that the public has not absorbed the enormity of what Biden has done on climate so far. This is a very high profile project, and he is suffering from a lack of enthusiasm. If he indeed announces that he's going to run for reelection, that enthusiasm is the foundation for the energy that he needs to win."

Lodes added, When it comes to the 2024 election, "I don't really think there's a choice. If you care about the climate, there's not a choice.”

READ MORE: Why executive orders on climate change may not be enough

Associated Press' full report is available at this link. Fortune's full report is here.

'Absurd and inflammatory': TX activists condemn 'outrageous' wrongful death lawsuit over abortion medication

A Texas man has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against three women for allegedly assisting his now-ex-wife with acquiring abortion medication, and activists are calling the move "outrageous," The Associated Press (AP) reports.

Per AP, Marcus Silva of Galveston County "alleges assisting in a self-administered abortion is tantamount to aiding a murder," and is pursuing a $1 million settlement.

In favor of Silva's legal action, Texas GOP Rep. Briscoe Cain, said, "Anyone involved in distributing or manufacturing abortion pills will be sued into oblivion."

READ MORE: Women denied abortions sue Texas to affirm exceptions to the laws

The Texas Tribune reports:

Joanna Grossman, a law professor at SMU Dedman School of Law, said this lawsuit is 'absurd and inflammatory.' Since the pregnant patient is protected from prosecution, there is no underlying cause of action to bring a wrongful death suit in a self-managed abortion, she said.

"But this is going to cause such fear and chilling that it doesn’t matter whether [Mitchell] is right," Grossman said. "Who is going to want to help a friend find an abortion if there is some chance that their text messages are going to end up in the news?

She continued, "And maybe they're going to get sued, and maybe they’re going to get arrested, and it’s going to get dropped eventually, but in the meantime, they will have been terrified."

AP reports:

Lawsuits challenging abortion restrictions have arisen across the U.S. as clinics have shuttered in Republican-dominated states. Earlier this week in Texas — which has one of the strictest bans in the country, outlawing the procedure in nearly every case with the exception of medical emergencies — five women who said they were denied abortions even when pregnancy endangered their lives sued the state.

READ MORE: GOP senator vows to 'make abortion unthinkable'

"This is an outrageous attempt to scare people from getting abortion care and intimidate those who support their friends, family, and community in their time of need," Autumn Katz, a Center for Reproductive Rights lawyer, said. "The extremists behind this lawsuit are twisting the law and judicial system to threaten and harass people seeking essential care and those who help them."

READ MORE: Federal judge says there may still be a constitutional right to abortion: report

Associated Press' full report is available at this link. Texas Tribune's full report is here.

Labor writer issues clear warning about DeSantis’ use of Florida as 'giant Fox News campaign ad' for 2024

A labor columnist is warning against giving Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) the space and opportunity to continue his efforts to promote fascism in his state.

In a piece published by "In These Times," Hamilton Nolan highlighted some of DeSantis’ most problematic goals and how he's setting the tone for a 2024 presidential run.

"The entire state of Florida, home to 22 million people, is currently being run as a giant Fox News campaign ad for the Ron DeSantis 2024 presidential campaign," Nolan warned. "As a method of crafting responsible public policy, this approach has a number of drawbacks."

READ MORE: 'Goes beyond ignorance' Historians slam DeSantis' claims about American slavery

“Ron DeSantis wants to break the unions and make a temporary advantage permanent,” Nolan wrote.

He went on express concern about the Democratic Party's lack of political muscle in the state and how it could ultimately lead to a grim outcome for the state's residents.

"If the state’s incompetent Democratic Party can’t rally itself to cut through the torrent of performative bulls--t and bigotry, we will soon wake up and find that this whiny, bullet-headed ex-jock has done to Florida’s workers what former Republican Gov. Scott Walker did to Wisconsin’s."

Nolan pointed to the series of events that transpired this week as he wrote, "This week, DeSantis announced that he is proposing legislation designed to decimate the power of Florida’s teachers unions. It would prohibit dues checkoff, making it excruciating for the unions to collect dues, and outlaw teachers doing union work or handing out union materials on the job."

READ MORE: How 'authoritarian' Ron DeSantis has made Florida a 'laboratory of fascist politics': scholar

While it may seem like outnumbered Democrats might be unable to contain DeSantis, Nolan argues otherwise.

"People in Florida of all political persuasions often talk of Ron DeSantis as if he is a formidable juggernaut that Democrats can’t hope to restrain," he wrote. "This is false."

Nolan later added, "He is just as immoral as his rivals, but he lacks the polished presentation of Ted Cruz and the magnetic insanity of Donald Trump. Though, as a rule, I do not make electoral predictions, it would not be surprising to see him crash and burn when faced with a presidential campaign that depends, above all, on charisma. It is easy to imagine him as the latest in a long line of media-hyped red-state governors whose self-importance crashed and sunk against the rocks of a competitive primar."

According to Nolan, the split in the state is "not as wide as it seems."

READ MORE: Rick Scott asked for an 'emergency donation' to Herschel Walker — and kept most of the money for the NRSC

"Nor is he some sort of king whose hold on Florida should be taken for granted," Nolan warned. "Florida is, in essence, a 50/50 state that should be extremely competitive in every election."

He concluded with a warning for Democrats and DeSantis-opposing residents in the state.

"Pulling this together requires a strong labor movement, and it requires the Democratic Party helping to build that movement. There is nothing impossible about any of this," he wrote.

"The threat here is bigger than one teachers union, or one state," Nolan continued. "Ron DeSantis intends to make Florida a stepping stone that he will use to walk into the White House and prove that America is still a racist, oppressive nation at heart. Stop him before he gets there. As a native Floridian, I politely call on the Florida Democrats, unions, teachers, and people of all stripes who don’t prefer life in a dystopia: Get your s--t together, before it’s too late."

Read the full column at In These Times.

READ MORE: Why 'opportunist' Ron DeSantis’ 'silence' on Ukrainian president’s speech speaks volumes: conservative

'Direct threat to action': How climate misinformation plagues Twitter under Elon Musk's leadership

Climate advocates recently determined a major increase in climate change disinformation circulating Twitter under billionaire Elon Musk’s leadership, The Associated Press reports.

Twitter users may be surprised to find that when “climate” is typed in the search bar, “climate scam” is the first recommended phrase to appear. And when “climate scam” is clicked, users will discover tweets filled with language that blatantly denies the reality of climate change.

Nonprofit organization Advance Democracy released a report last year determining that “climate scam” tweets skyrocketed by 300 percent.

READ MORE: 'Open source it': Facebook whistleblower dares Elon Musk to 'publish the algorithms' controlling Twitter

The Associated Press reported that climate misinformation has spread increasingly under the billionaire’s direction. Unlike disinformation, which the American Psychology Association defines as information that is maliciously and “deliberately intended to mislead” — misinformation is “false or inaccurate information—getting the facts wrong.”

The Institute for Strategic Dialogue tracks climate change disinformation in partnership with other environmental advocacy groups, and recently distributed a report that exposes months of social media platforms’ failure to vet climate change disinformation.

Head of climate research at the institute, Jennie King, called the effect of this uptick in disinformation “a direct threat to action.” She said, “it plants those seeds of doubt and makes people think maybe there isn’t scientific consensus.”

To King’s point, researchers discovered that Meta permitted approximately 4,000 ads that completely ignore any “scientific consensus” around the climate crisis across its website. Additionally, researchers also uncovered evidence that those same accounts sharing false climate information, typically share false election, COVID-19 and vaccination language as well.

READ MORE: Texas agriculture agency: Climate change threatening state's food supply

Twitter announced that the platform would cease the enforcement of its COVID-19 misinformation policy in November. Subsequently, the spread of misinformation increased.

In the same month, Musk changed Twitter’s verification system completely, which formerly confirmed the legitimacy of accounts of public figures. Now, users can simply pay $8 each month to attain verification, which anti-misinformation group Center for Countering Digital Hate asserts is likely a contributing factor to could also be a reason for increased disinformation and misinformation.

The group’s chief executive officer Imran Khan said they “found [the new verification system] has in fact put rocket boosters on the spread of lies and disinformation.”

As long as anyone has the ability deem themselves a legitimate source of information, disinformation will continue to spread like wildfire.

READ MORE: Exxon knew its fuels cause climate change since 1977 and made no effort to do anything about it: report

'A big deal': Wisconsin’s upcoming Supreme Court race could 'determine the fate' of the state

An upcoming Wisconsin Supreme Court race in April could determine the future of politics in the swing state, Politico reports.

Following conservative Justice Patience Roggensack's stepping down, her available seat leaves room for the court to not only tip to majority Democrat for the next two years, but also determine the future for important issues like abortion rights, voting rights and redistricting.

The Court will likely hear a case that challenges Wisconsin’s abortion ban “in the near future”, according to Politico. To make matters more complicated for the court, Republican Justice Brian Hagedorn has been known to side with the liberal justices on past cases.

READ MORE: Energized Democrats in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin could face 'an unprecedented level of chaos' in 2023

Chair of the Wisconsin Democratic Party, Ben Wikler, has called the critical race “the most important election that nobody’s ever heard of.” He said, “It has implications that will affect national politics for years to come, really at every level of government.”

But first, before a new justice is determined, voters will cast their ballots in a February primary election. Potential candidates include former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Daniel Kelly, a Republican, Judge Jennifer Dorow of Waukesha County, who became known for how she handled the 2021 Waukesha Christmas parade attack, also a Republican and Democratic Judges Everett Mitchell of Dane County and Janet Protasiewicz of Milwaukee County.

Because the race is so crucial to the future of some of the most important social issues today, many advocacy groups, both Republican and Democrat leaning, are expected to spend millions of dollars on ads for their preferred candidate.

Conservative group Fair Courts America, which is financially supported by businessman and billionaire Richard Uihlein, has pledged “millions of dollars” to Judge Kelly’s campaign. And Stephen Billy, the Vice President of State Affairs at the anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, confirmed the group will also contribute to the race “to make sure that Wisconsin doesn’t end up with a fabricated right to abortion decided by activist judges.”

READ MORE: 'The quiet part out loud': Wisconsin GOP gubernatorial nominee makes extreme promise to supporters if he wins

On the other side of the political aisle, Planned Parenthood is planning to drop “six figures” on the race, in addition to coordinating voter education campaigns.

Aside from partisan groups and individuals, there are also those who are choosing to remain "neutral," such as Wisconsin’s Democratic Governor Tony Evers. Although he hasn't stated his partisan position, he called the race “huge.” He said, “The Supreme Court has leaned conservative on almost all of the issues. So yes, this is a big deal.”

The National Democratic Redistricting Committee (NDRC) is also staying neutral in the primary, but is in the process of ramping up their political efforts. Chair of the organization, former attorney general Eric Holder, has plans to travel to Wisconsin for the general election, according to Politico.

As the race quickly approaches, the state’s Republican Party is paying close attention to Democrats.

READ MORE: Anti-abortion Republicans have 'learned nothing' from their midterms disappointments: columnist

Mark Jefferson, executive director of the Wisconsin Republican Party said, “It is becoming clear the Democrats want to use the Supreme Court as a vehicle to circumvent legislators who actually make policy decisions.” He continued, “If the liberals pick up another seat, they will have a rock-solid majority that never deviates from liberal activism.”

Gracie Skogman, with anti-abortion organization Wisconsin Right to Life, said when it comes to ensuring their base is ready for the race, “there’s a long way to go.”

She asserted, “The unfortunate news is the majority of voters that we have interacted with are not aware of the stakes of the election, the candidates who are on the ballot, the views of the candidate, or the tie between our current pro-life statutes and the results of the election.”

READ MORE: How abortion rights and redistricting are firing up state supreme court races in 2022

@2025 - AlterNet Media Inc. All Rights Reserved. - "Poynter" fonts provided by fontsempire.com.