Latest news with #Ashcroft
Vox
17 hours ago
- Politics
- Vox
The hilarious implications of the Supreme Court's new porn decision
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld a Texas anti-pornography law on Friday that is nearly identical to a federal law it struck down more than two decades ago. Rather than overruling the previous case — Ashcroft v. ACLU (2004) — Justice Clarence Thomas's opinion spends at least a dozen pages making an unconvincing argument that Friday's decision in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton is consistent with the Court's previous decisions. Those pages are a garbled mess, and Thomas spends much of them starting from the assumption that his conclusions are true. All three Democratic justices dissented. SCOTUS, Explained Get the latest developments on the US Supreme Court from senior correspondent Ian Millhiser. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. That said, Free Speech Coalition makes two very significant changes to the Court's approach to free speech protections for pornography, and these changes are clearly stated in Thomas's opinion. In Ashcroft, the Court struck down a federal law that basically required pornographic websites to screen users to determine if they are over the age of 18. One reason for this decision is that it was far from clear that websites were actually capable of performing this task. As the Court had acknowledged in an earlier case, 'existing technology did not include any effective method for a sender to prevent minors from obtaining access to its communications on the Internet without also denying access to adults.' This mattered because, long before the internet was widely available, the Court had established, in cases involving phone sex lines and televised pornography, that 'the objective of shielding children' from sexual material is not enough 'to support a blanket ban if the protection can be accomplished by a less restrictive alternative.' These decisions established that adults have a First Amendment right to view sexual material, and this right cannot be diminished in an effort to keep that material from children. Related The huge stakes in a new Supreme Court case about pornography Accordingly, in Ashcroft, the Court ruled that the federal age-gating law must survive the toughest test that courts can apply in constitutional cases, known as 'strict scrutiny.' Very few laws survive this test, and the law at issue in Ashcroft did not. The Court's ruling in Free Speech Coalition, however, changes the rules governing laws that seek to block minors' access to pornography, but which also may prevent adults from seeing that material. While much of Thomas's opinion is difficult to parse, one significant factor driving the Court's decision is the fact that technology has evolved. The internet, and internet pornography, is much more widely available than it was two decades ago. And it may now actually be possible to reliably age-gate pornographic websites. Now, laws like the one at issue in Free Speech Coalition are only subject to a test known as 'intermediate scrutiny' — a test which, as the name implies, is less strict. Under this somewhat less rigid framework, an anti-pornography law will be upheld 'if it advances important governmental interests unrelated to the suppression of free speech and does not burden substantially more speech than necessary to further those interests.' According to Thomas, in Free Speech Coalition, the 'important governmental interest' at issue in this case is 'shielding children from sexual content.' Intermediate scrutiny, it should be noted, is not a paper tiger. Laws that discriminate on the basis of gender, for example, are typically subject to intermediate scrutiny. And most of these laws are struck down. But the new rule announced in Free Speech Coalition gives states broader leeway to restrict access to pornography. Additionally, Thomas's opinion also implies that adults have no legal right to keep their decision to view sexual material private. The plaintiffs in Free Speech Coalition argued that 'the unique stigma surrounding pornography will make age verification too chilling for adults.' Pornography users are likely to be reluctant to submit their ID to a site like Pornhub, for example, out of fear that the website will be hacked. This is likely to be especially true for people who are trying to keep their sexual orientation a secret, or people who could face serious career consequences if their private sexual behavior became public. But Thomas's opinion is exceedingly dismissive of the idea that privacy matters in this context. 'The use of pornography has always been the subject of social stigma,' he writes. But 'this social reality has never been a reason to exempt the pornography industry from otherwise valid regulation.' It's unclear just how far Thomas, or the rest of his colleagues, would take this conclusion. Could a state, for example, require everyone who wants to look at a pornographic video to submit their names to a government agency that will publish them on a public website? At the very least, however, Free Speech Coalition suggests that lawyers challenging anti-pornography laws may no longer raise privacy arguments as part of their challenge. The Court's decision is likely to make life miserable for judges Free Speech Coalition makes clear that the era when the courts struck down nearly all laws regulating sexual speech is over. The government will now play a larger role in regulating online content depicting sex. There is a very good reason, moreover, why pre-Free Speech Coalition courts took a libertarian approach to sexual speech. Although the First Amendment has been part of the Constitution since the late 1700s, it was largely meaningless for most of American history. And the government routinely prosecuted people for saying things, or for producing art, that regulators or law enforcement found objectionable. Under the 1873 Comstock Act and similar state laws, for example, people were routinely jailed for selling erotic literature or nude art, even works that are now widely considered masterpieces. This regime began to change in the middle of the twentieth century, when the Court started protecting speech of all kinds, including both sexual and political speech. In Roth v. United States (1957), for example, the Court established that sexual speech and art could only be banned if the 'average person, applying contemporary community standards' would determine that 'the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interest.' Later Supreme Court decisions tweaked this rule, and they also focused on whether the challenged speech or art has 'serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.' Speech that does have such value is protected. All of these legal tests, however, are quite vague. And the question of whether a particular film or photo has serious artistic value is rather obviously in the eye of the beholder. Hence Justice Potter Stewart's infamous statement that he may not be able to come up with a coherent legal framework to determine what sort of material should be banned, 'but I know it when I see it.' The result was that, for much of the 1970s, the justices literally had to meet in the basement of the Supreme Court to watch pornographic movies that were the subject of prosecutions, in order to make subjective calls about which movies should be protected by the First Amendment. Those movie days, as described by Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong in The Brethren, were thoroughly humiliating experiences. Justice John Marshall Harlan, for example, was nearly blind during many of these screenings, so one of his law clerks had to describe what was happening on the screen to him — often prompting Harlan to explain 'By Jove!' or 'extraordinary!' Meanwhile, filmmakers would often try to work within the Court's 'serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value' framework by including political discussions or similar matters in a movie that was otherwise about sex. According to Woodward and Armstrong, for example, one such film ended with a speech 'on the comparative merits of Communist and Western societies.' The point is that, once the Court decided that some sexual speech is protected by the Constitution, it was extremely difficult to come up with a principled way to distinguish art that is too sexy to be protected by the First Amendment from art that is not. And the Court's attempts to do so only made a mockery of the justices. Eventually, the combination of Supreme Court decisions that read the First Amendment broadly, and technologies like the internet that made it very difficult to suppress sexual speech, ushered in an era where pornography is widely available and mostly unregulated. In upholding the Texas law at issue in Free Speech Coalition, the Court could end this era. But the justices are likely to make their own lives miserable as a result. Texas's law incorporates many of the Supreme Court's past pornography decisions, only restricting speech, for example, that 'lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.' Thus, if Texas wants to apply this law to Pornhub, some poor judge will have to watch much of the content on that website to determine if it has literary, artistic, political, or scientific value — and whatever that judge decides, their decision will be appealed to other judges who will have to engage in the same exercise. Justice Thomas and his colleagues, in other words, should probably install a popcorn machine in the Supreme Court building, because they've just signed themselves up to recreate the humiliating movie days of the Court's past.
The Herald Scotland
05-06-2025
- Business
- The Herald Scotland
Mitie agrees £366m deal to buy Lord Ashcroft-founded firm Marlowe
Mitie said it hopes to cut costs by £30 million a year across the combined group after the takeover. Marlowe is a provider of fire safety services, which is listed on the London's Aim junior market, and employs around 3,000 workers. FTSE 250-listed Mitie employs about 72,000 staff in areas from cleaning and security to maintenance. Phil Bentley, chief executive of Mitie, said: 'Adding Marlowe's circa 3,000 highly respected colleagues to Mitie's capabilities and providing access to Mitie's clients will generate significant revenue growth opportunities as well as immediate cost efficiencies. 'We are excited about the next chapter in Mitie's history to become a leading facilities compliance provider.' Lord Ashcroft, interim non-executive chairman of Marlowe, added: 'The acquisition represents excellent value for Marlowe shareholders.' 'I have been consistent since taking up the role of interim chairman in June 2024 that my aim was to maximise shareholder returns and the acquisition will be the final piece in that jigsaw,' he said. Lord Ashcroft – a former deputy chairman of the Conservative Party – co-founded Marlowe with Alex Dacre, its former chief executive. He became non-executive chairman on an interim basis when Mr Dacre left in June last year. He is the latest shareholder in Marlowe, with an 18.9% stake. In Mitie's full year figures also out on Thursday, it reported an 11% rise in underlying operating profits to £234 million for the year to March 31. But statutory pre-tax profits fell to £145.4 million from £156.3 million the previous year.
7NEWS
27-05-2025
- Sport
- 7NEWS
Lachie Neale ‘clips' young teammate Will Ashcroft with ‘extraordinary comments'
Agenda Setters host Caroline Wilson says Brisbane captain Lachie Neale's assessment of the professionalism of his young teammate Will Ashcroft were 'extraordinary'. In just his third AFL season, Ashcroft has already announced himself as one of the premier midfielders of the competition, having won a Norm Smith Medal in just his 31st game last year. Know the news with the 7NEWS app: Download today He is widely regarded as one of the most professional young players in the AFL, and a lot of his early success has been attributed to that by his coaches and those around him. But Neale appeared to see it slightly differently, saying Ashcroft still had some way to go. On Tuesday night, Wilson said: 'Could we have a quick listen to the Brownlow medallist, Lachie Neale, and some extraordinary comments — well, it pricked up my ears anyway.' Asked on SEN if Ashcroft was the most professional player he'd ever seen, Neale fell short of giving praise that high. 'I've seen some pretty professional blokes, and he's still working on his body and what he needs to do to get to that top echelon,' Neale said. 'But he's still learning though and he's got a little way to go to be the most professional, but I think the way he handles himself is first-class.' It was an answer that cause Wilson by surprise. 'I thought that was a bit of a clip and really fascinating,' she said. 'He's got a lot of work to do, clearly.' Neale and Ashcroft were the Lions' two best players in their premiership victory against Sydney last year. They have formed one of the competition's best midfield duos, and complete a superstar quartet with Hugh McCluggage and Josh Dunkley, who comprehensively beat Hawthorn at the weekend. Brisbane (8-1-2) had a short break before hosting Essendon at the Gabba on Thursday night. The Hawks (7-4) face another huge test on Friday night when they face premiership favourites Collingwood at the MCG. Lions forward Charlie Cameron was instrumental in their win over the Hawks, overcoming his early-season form slump break the game open with three goals in three minutes late in the second quarter. 'When you're sort of going through a little stumble —missing goals and opportunities — just to finish your work, it's pretty satisfying,' Cameron said. 'I know how much those little things add up throughout the year ... we've got a big game coming up against Essendon so I can take a lot of confidence from this.'
Perth Now
26-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Perth Now
Richard Ashcroft told Noel Gallagher he was the 'only person' who could open for Oasis
Richard Ashcroft told Noel Gallagher he was the "only person" who could open for Oasis on their reunion tour. Gallagher is reuniting with his estranged brother Liam and their bandmates to get the group back on the road this summer for series of sell-out stadium shows on the 'Oasis Live '25 Tour' and The Verve star Ashcroft will be supporting them on all of their UK and Ireland shows - and he's convinced he was the right choice because of his long history with Oasis. In an interview on 'The Chris Moyles Show' on Radio X, Ashcroft explained: "I see it as I've got a very important part to play in this. "You know, back in the day Oasis supported The Verve and then it flipped around and we supported Oasis at Earls Court, then I as a solo artist have played with Oasis. "I said to Noel: 'You know, I think I'm the only person who could go in this slot. Especially for a huge outdoor show, because everyone wants your lot. And unless you're coming with something, unless you've got something to offer, I don't know what's gonna happen'." Oasis previously opened for The Verve back in 1993 before the release of their 1994 debut album 'Definitely Maybe' and Ashcroft's band went on to support the brothers' group at The Bataclan venue in Paris, France in 1995. Ashcroft went on to perform with Oasis at gigs in Scotland in 1995 and he also sang on their track 'All Around The World' which featured on the 1997 record 'Be Here Now'. He added: "I think it's great that we're still around. I've been there almost in that whole story together with them. Right from the day one. "Before their album came out, first album [1994's 'Definitely Maybe'], seen that. They were kind of like mega successful before I was. They were on [TV show] 'Top Of The Pops'. By the time it was my turn, it was like they'd been all over it. "They sold millions of albums, blah, blah, blah, but the rarity of that, that you could have two bands, both in transits off playing to 300 people. "Both saying: 'We're gonna do this.' 'No, no we're gonna do that'. And for that to happen is incredible." Cast will also be opening for the band on the 'Oasis Live '25 Tour', which kicks off in Cardiff, Wales on July 4.
Cision Canada
21-05-2025
- Business
- Cision Canada
New Mackenzie Investments Funds Provide Investment Opportunities Across Geographies and Sectors Français
Mackenzie International All Cap Equity Fund provides diversification beyond North American equities, while Mackenzie US Value Fund uncovers high-quality, attractive opportunities in the U.S. TORONTO, May 21, 2025 /CNW/ - Mackenzie Investments ("Mackenzie") today announced the launch of two new mutual funds, Mackenzie International All Cap Equity Fund and Mackenzie US Value Fund (each a "Fund" and together, the "Funds"). Both Funds aim to provide investors with enhanced portfolio diversification by offering them access to new opportunities in a variety of markets, sectors and companies. Mackenzie International All Cap Equity Fund Mackenzie International All Cap Equity Fund seeks to provide investors with true international equity exposure and diversification. Managed by the Mackenzie Europe and Asia Teams, the Fund invests in a range of market caps and styles, following a core approach that aims to capture return potential from around the world, adapting to market fluctuations. The teams' nimble approach allows them to pivot and uncover alpha opportunities as they arise. "This Fund is a great option for investors looking to diversify their portfolios outside of North America," said Kristi Ashcroft, Executive Vice President, Products & Solutions, Mackenzie Investments. "The Fund leverages a fundamental approach that is centered around the regional expertise of Mackenzie's investment boutiques in Europe and Asia, and aims to give investors access to the high conviction investment ideas across the market cap spectrum." Mackenzie US Value Fund Mackenzie US Value Fund, sub-advised by Putnam Investments, seeks to invest in undervalued U.S. companies across diverse sectors. These companies are characterized by robust cash flows, resilient business models and substantial growth potential. "The investment paradigm that has dominated the last several years may be shifting, and against that backdrop, investors may be looking to diversify from mandates focused on growth stocks. Backed by a team with decades of value-investing experience, the Fund will offer a concentrated portfolio that seeks high risk-adjusted returns through a focus on stock selection and disciplined risk management," concluded Ms. Ashcroft. For more information on Mackenzie's investment solutions, please visit About Mackenzie Investments Mackenzie Investments ("Mackenzie") is a Canadian investment management firm with approximately $213 billion in assets under management as of April 30, 2025. Mackenzie seeks to create a more invested world by delivering strong investment performance and offering innovative portfolio solutions and related services to more than one million retail and institutional clients through multiple distribution channels. Founded in 1967, it is a global asset manager with offices across Canada as well as in Beijing, Boston, Dublin, Hong Kong and London. Mackenzie is a member of IGM Financial Inc. (TSX: IGM), part of the Power Corporation group of companies and one of Canada's leading diversified wealth and asset management organizations with approximately $269 billion in total assets under management and advisement as of April 30, 2025. For more information, visit
