Poland Charges Former Minister for Revealing Secret Defense Plan
The legal steps brought against one of the top officials in the Law & Justice party are the latest salvo in Prime Minister Donald Tusk's campaign to investigate alleged abuses of power.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
KINSELLA: Mark Carney's words can have real-life impacts for Jews
Canada, France and the United Kingdom recognize a 'state' run by terrorists. Canada's Prime Minister accuses Israel of violating international law. The International Criminal Court issues warrants for the arrest of Israel's Prime Minister. Sometimes, such pronouncements made by governments seem completely detached from reality. None of those countries have yet set up an embassy in Gaza City, for example. Nor has Canada commenced a court action against Israel. No country, as far as we know, has attempted to place Benjamin Netanyahu under arrest. But it would be a mistake to shrug about the pronouncements of world leaders, or to dismiss their words as meaningless symbols. For Jews, these dark days, words can have real-life impacts. Sometimes, the consequences can be deadly. CyberWell is an Internet watchdog that closely tracks antisemitism on social media. When the Israel-based non-profit finds hate online, it notifies the social media platforms, and urges them to take it down. And two recent reports by CyberWell show that the words and actions of governments can, and do, result in shocking eruptions in cyber-hate. A recent example: the twelve-day war between Israel, the United States and Iran took place in June 2025. That conflict saw Israel launch hundreds of airstrikes against the Islamic republic – and Iran firing thousands of ballistic missiles and suicide drones at Israeli military and civilian targets. Israel was largely seen as the victor. KINSELLA: Canada to recognize Palestinian state despite Hamas' atrocities? KINSELLA: Netanyahu a big part of why Israel is losing propaganda war KINSELLA: Canada once mattered on the international stage – not anymore Online, the abbreviated Iran-Israel war had a very different outcome. Online, Iran was the hands-down victor. During and after the conflict, CyberWell found, and 'across platforms like TikTok, Facebook, and X, users once again used digital spaces to post antisemitic rhetoric, incitement to violence, and coded hate speech – at times under the guise of political commentary or religious solidarity.' It's not a new phenomenon, CyberWell notes, and it's getting worse all the time: 'Each new flashpoint acts as a trigger for dangerous digital discourse that can quickly spill into real-world harm.' For example: during the Iran-Israel war, the words 'Khaybar, Khaybar, O Jews' were all over social media, in the Farsi and Arabic languages. The phrase refers to a long-ago battle in Khaybar, which was a Jewish town in what is now Saudi Arabia – and where Muslim forces massacred the Jewish population. The 'Khaybar, Khaybar, O Jews' slogan has been used, for centuries, to call for pogroms against Jews. On X, as the war commenced, that hateful phrase grew by more than 3,000% over the previous months. Midway through the conflict, it increased by nearly 7,000% over before. By the end of the war, those words had reached three million individual accounts. The Farsi version of the chant far outpaced the Arabic one, too. Some of the posters were very specific. After activist Eyal Yakoby simply posted a photo of an Israeli apartment building destroyed by an Iranian missile, '@pratynachiyar' wrote: 'Kill everyone from Israel, Iran, good job buddy…let these Jew f**kers leave Earth permanently.' And, tragically, killings were indeed happening. As the Jew hatred was growing dramatically online – as more and more governments were showing a willingness to isolate and attack the Jewish state – actual murders happened. So, just days before the war started, two young Israeli embassy staffers were assassinated outside the Capital Jewish Museum – and the alleged shooter yelled 'Free Palestine' as he was arrested by police. Days later, an elderly Jewish woman died after being set ablaze in Boulder, Colorado – again, by an alleged killer who reportedly yelled 'Free Palestine' – a phrase that was, and is, ubiquitous online. As CyberWell puts it: 'These are not isolated incidents. They are part of a dangerous, recurring cycle that CyberWell has repeatedly warned about: inflammatory content spreads online, fuelling real-world hate and violence. Each act of violence or hate speech online reinforces the next, creating a self-perpetuating loop.' The 'loop,' as CyberWell puts it, has recently gone like this: witless Western governments demonize Israel, which leads to antisemitic propagandists doing likewise online, which then legitimizes – and leads to – actual antisemitic crime and violence. It needs to stop. Police and prosecutors need to get better at fighting antisemitic crime. Social media platforms need to do a better job of moderating what's being posted online. And governments, like Canada's, need to recognize that what they say can sometimes result in real-life harm. Sometimes, in fact, it can result in death.
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
What Are Son of Sam Laws? Unpacking the Rules That David Berkowitz Inspired (and How They Relate to the Idaho College Murders)
Son of Sam laws were initially written to prevent criminals from profiting off their offenses — but their constitutionality has come into question The Son of Sam, otherwise known as David Berkowitz, murdered six people and injured 11 during his New York City shooting spree between 1976 and 1977. In the new Netflix docuseries Conversations With a Killer: The Son of Sam Tapes, out July 30, the serial killer details his mindset when he began murdering strangers, including what led him to write letters to the press and police in a dark cat-and-mouse game until he was finally caught in August 1977. Berkowitz reportedly enjoyed the attention he got from the media and sought to get paid for a book telling his side of the story. Lawmakers in New York tried to prevent Berkowitz and other convicts from profiting off of their crimes, leading them to pass the Son of Sam law in 1977 before the .44 Caliber Killer had a chance to collect a dime from his crimes. Berkowitz was sentenced to 25 years to life for each murder he committed. Other states enacted similar laws, but the Supreme Court delivered a judgment nearly 15 years later that killed or forced changes to many Son of Sam laws nationwide. Here is everything to know about the Son of Sam laws. What is a Son of Sam law? New York enacted the original Son of Sam law in 1977 in an effort to prevent Berkowitz and other criminals from profiting off of their crimes in the form of movie, TV, book and other media deals, according to The New York Times. In the 1977 law, victims were permitted to sue to receive any proceeds that convicted criminals received from paid media, with a Crime Victims Board able to seize the proceeds until the lawsuits were settled. Under the first Son of Sam law, victims could sue within three years from the time a criminal received payment for media related to their offenses. At the time, there was also a statute of limitations of seven years from the time the crime was committed to file a lawsuit. Why is it called the Son of Sam law? The Son of Sam law got its name from Berkowitz's murder spree from 1976 through 1977. The serial killer used the alias — derived from the name of his neighbor, Sam Carr, and his dog Harvey — in his letters to reporters and law enforcement. Berkowitz later alleged that he heard demons speaking to him through Harvey, a claim he later said he made for attention and to avoid taking accountability for the damage and trauma he caused. The New York Times reported that Berkowitz and his team were selling a book that could make between $1 million and $10 million, of which Berkowitz would receive one-third. The killer and his team were reportedly also considering selling movie rights, but Berkowitz denied these claims. How many states have Son of Sam laws? Around 40 states have Son of Sam laws, though their enforcement and the details in each vary. For example, California's former Son of Sam law stated that only people convicted of felonies were barred from profiting off of their stories and rights to film, TV, books and other media; and it specified that works with only "passing mention of the felony, as in a footnote or bibliography" were exempt. The California Supreme Court, though, struck down their Son of Sam law in 2002 for infringing upon the First Amendment, per Reporters Committee. Is the Son of Sam law unconstitutional? In 1991, the Supreme Court ruled that New York's 1977 Son of Sam law was unconstitutional in the case Simon & Schuster v. Members of the New York Crime Victims Board. The publishers of the book Wiseguy: Life in a Mafia Family by Henry Hill and Nicholas Pileggi (which would later be adapted into Martin Scorsese's acclaimed film Goodfellas) sued the Victims Board, arguing that the law made authors and editors self-censor their books. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor found in her opinion that the Son of Sam law violated the First Amendment, noting that it was "presumptively inconsistent with the First Amendment if it imposes a financial burden on speakers because of the content of their speech." She argued that under the Son of Sam law, as it was written and enacted in 1977, books like The Autobiography of Malcolm X and Henry David Thoreau's Civil Disobedience could see their proceeds not go to their respective authors. What happened to the Son of Sam law in New York? The original Son of Sam law in New York was amended in 2001 to allow victims to sue criminals not just for profits from movie, TV and book deals, but for virtually any income the convicts received while incarcerated, including lottery winnings, inheritance or stock market earnings, per The New York Times. The amended law also extended the statute of limitations from seven to 10 years from the date of the crimes. In December 2023, CBS News reported that New York lawmakers sought to amend the Son of Sam law again to also apply to spouses and relatives of criminals after the Gilgo Beach serial killer suspect Rex Heuermann's estranged wife, Asa Ellerup, was reportedly paid seven figures from Peacock when she appeared in a documentary. Peacock said in a statement at the time that Ellerup "was not paid for her participation, but was paid a licensing fee for use of her archive materials." Peacock also noted that the funds were not permitted to be given to Heuermann or his criminal defense. The proposed amended law would also require any company paying a criminal's relatives or spouses $10,000 or more to notify the New York State Office of Victim Services, which would in turn notify victims, Newsday reported. Does Idaho have a Son of Sam law? Idaho does not have a specific Son of Sam law, a point that the judge in the University of Idaho murder trial alluded to in his sentencing of Bryan Kohberger, per the Independent. Kohberger stabbed Madison Mogen, Kaylee Goncalves, Xana Kernodle and Ethan Chapin to death in their shared home in November 2022. He pleaded guilty to the quadruple murder three weeks before his trial was set to begin in exchange for avoiding the death penalty and received four life sentences. "I know there has been concern about him collaborating on books, or movies, or other media projects, and I truly hope that someone does not stoop to affording him this spotlight that he desires, in the name of clicks, royalties, or profits," Judge Steven Hippler said at Kohberger's sentencing hearing. "In my view, the time has now come to end Mr. Kohberger's 15 minutes of fame." Judge Hippler also encouraged the victims' loved ones and the public to not give Kohberger the notoriety that he suspected the killer wanted. "The need to know what is inherently not understandable makes us dependent upon the defendant to provide us with a reason, and that gives him the spotlight, the attention and the power he appears to crave," Hippler said. "Yet, even if I could force him to speak, which legally I cannot, how could anyone ever be assured that what he speaks is the truth?" Read the original article on People
Yahoo
13 hours ago
- Yahoo
Appeals court keeps order blocking Trump administration from indiscriminate immigration sweeps
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A federal appeals court ruled Friday night to uphold a lower court's temporary order blocking the Trump administration from conducting indiscriminate immigration stops and arrests in Southern California. A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held a hearing Monday afternoon at which the federal government asked the court to overturn a temporary restraining order issued July 12 by Judge Maame E. Frimpong, arguing it hindered their enforcement of immigration law. Immigrant advocacy groups filed suit last month accusing President Donald Trump's administration of systematically targeting brown-skinned people in Southern California during the administration's crackdown on illegal immigration. The lawsuit included three detained immigrants and two U.S. citizens as plaintiffs. In her order, Frimpong said there was a 'mountain of evidence' that federal immigration enforcement tactics were violating the Constitution. She wrote the government cannot use factors such as apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, presence at a location such as a tow yard or car wash, or someone's occupation as the only basis for reasonable suspicion to detain someone. The Los Angeles region has been a battleground with the Trump administration over its aggressive immigration strategy that spurred protests and the deployment of the National Guards and Marines for several weeks. Federal agents have rounded up immigrants without legal status to be in the U.S. from Home Depots, car washes, bus stops, and farms, many who have lived in the country for decades. Among the plaintiffs is Los Angeles resident Brian Gavidia, who was shown in a video taken by a friend June 13 being seized by federal agents as he yells, 'I was born here in the states, East LA bro!' They want to 'send us back to a world where a U.S. citizen ... can be grabbed, slammed against a fence and have his phone and ID taken from him just because he was working at a tow yard in a Latino neighborhood,' American Civil Liberties Union attorney Mohammad Tajsar told the court. The federal government argued that it hadn't been given enough time to collect and present evidence in the lawsuit, given that it was filed shortly before the July 4 holiday and a hearing was held the following week. 'It's a very serious thing to say that multiple federal government agencies have a policy of violating the Constitution,' attorney Jacob Roth said. He also argued that the lower court's order was too broad, and that immigrant advocates did not present enough evidence to prove that the government had an official policy of stopping people without reasonable suspicion. He referred to the four factors of race, language, presence at a location, and occupation that were listed in the temporary restraining order, saying the court should not be able to ban the government from using them at all. He also argued that the order was unclear on what exactly is permissible under law. 'Legally, I think it's appropriate to use the factors for reasonable suspicion,' Roth said The judges sharply questioned the government over their arguments. 'No one has suggested that you cannot consider these factors at all,' Judge Jennifer Sung said. However, those factors alone only form a 'broad profile' and don't satisfy the reasonable suspicion standard to stop someone, she said. Sung, a Biden appointee, said that in an area like Los Angeles, where Latinos make up as much as half the population, those factors 'cannot possibly weed out those who have undocumented status and those who have documented legal status.' She also asked: 'What is the harm to being told not to do something that you claim you're already not doing?' Solve the daily Crossword
