Party Discipline

posted in: All news | 0

In response to last spring’s student protests against Israel’s war on Gaza that roiled college campuses across the country, including in Texas, the state’s Republican Legislature passed a law this spring placing certain conditions on “expressive activities” on campus. University governing boards were given more power to restrict when and how protests could occur, including a ban on amplified speech during class hours and demonstrations overnight. 

This was a notable about-face from the purported free-speech protections that Texas Republicans had enshrined into law just a few years earlier, in 2019, to curtail perceived campus crackdowns on conservative expression as colleges canceled events with controversial speakers like “alt-right” white nationalist Richard Spencer. 

So swings the political pendulum of First Amendment rights in the Lone Star State—and nationwide—as this foundational protection is treated as a prop to be bear-hugged in one moment and conveniently tossed aside when an opportunistic moment demands. 

After the September assassination of right-wing influencer and activist Charlie Kirk during a college campus event in Utah, the Trump administration and the MAGA movement have responded with a crackdown on free speech and expression, ranging from policing the masses for uncouth responses to Kirk’s killing to getting a critical late-night TV show host temporarily taken off the air. 

Perhaps nowhere has this been on more clear display than in Texas, and, more specifically, in the governor’s mansion. In the wake of Kirk’s death, Governor Greg Abbott publicly called for the expulsion of at least two students on state university campuses who were filmed mocking or otherwise making light of the assassination. In one case, he invoked “FAFO,” a very-online acronym he’s belatedly become fond of (short for “Fuck around and find out”), while posting the image of a Texas Tech student, a young Black woman, getting taken away in handcuffs after taunting Kirk supporters with an improvised song. “This is what happened to the person who was mocking Charlie Kirk’s assassination at Texas Tech,” Abbott wrote. “FAFO.” 

The governor expressed no concern as to whether the 18-year-old had committed any crime or had simply been arrested for her speech.

Abbott and his agency bureaucrats also set up a hotline to report instances of public school teachers in Texas posting anything deemed inappropriate about Kirk’s killing, pledging to revoke the state teaching certificates of anyone deemed guilty of such speech crimes.

While many conservatives in Texas have willingly joined this crackdown, some have shown some semblance of a spine. In response to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi pledging in the immediate aftermath of Kirk’s killing to prosecute “hate speech,” Senator Ted Cruz kindly reminded his podcast audience that this would be unconstitutional. The nation’s founding document “absolutely protects hate speech,” he said. “It protects vile speech. It protects horrible speech. What does that mean? It means you cannot be prosecuted for speech, even if it is evil and bigoted and wrong.” 

He also said that the Trump-appointed FCC chief had acted like a “mafioso” by threatening ABC execs over late-night show host Jimmy Kimmel’s (conveniently misinterpreted) commentary on Kirk’s death. Some other Texas Republicans publicly supported Cruz’s sentiment, including departing state Representative and ex-Speaker Dade Phelan, who chimed in: “Slippery slope indeed.” 

Meanwhile, the state’s top Republican leaders rushed to assemble what appears to be purely a show committee. Two days after Kirk’s murder, the Texas House speaker and lieutenant governor announced a select committee on Civil Discourse & Freedom of Speech in Higher Education, an Orwellian title for a body to ostensibly oversee the implementation of two recently enacted laws policing speech, governance, and curriculum on campus. 

This has all come alongside a rash of faculty firings in Texas sparked by the right’s efforts to purge universities of suspected leftist radicalism. A history professor at Texas State University was summarily tossed out of his tenured position for critical comments he made at a socialism conference about the violent American empire, which were surreptitiously recorded by a right-wing blogger. That professor, Thomas Alter, has since filed a lawsuit against the university for violating his First Amendment rights.

A lecturer at Texas A&M was also fired for apparently discussing a book that touched on gender identity in her children’s literature class. Texas A&M President Mark Welsh, a former four-star Air Force general, was caught on video initially resisting calls to fire the professor, though he ultimately did axe her in the face of cacophonous political pressure. But his initial hesitancy had his critics—including right-wing state Representative Brian Harrison and Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick—saying he was insufficiently committed to carrying out the anti-left purges. 

“His ambivalence on the issue and his dismissal of the student’s concerns by immediately taking the side of the professor is unacceptable,” Patrick posted on social media. Welsh then resigned.

A&M, the more conservative sibling campus to UT-Austin, has been under growing scrutiny recently from right-wing attack dogs like Harrison, who’ve pounced on any sign of supposed DEI initiatives, gender and race coursework, and the like. Welsh himself was named university president to replace M. Katherine Banks, who resigned in the summer of 2023 amid a firestorm sparked by the university hiring longtime UT journalism professor Kathleen McElroy to head up A&M’s journalism program. That news whipped right-wingers into what McElroy, who is Black, described as a “DEI hysteria,” and the university board of regents rescinded her offer. (McElroy, who remains a UT professor, has since become a board member of the Texas Observer’s parent nonprofit.) 

While Welsh left without putting up much of a fight, his ouster has some similarities to perhaps the most infamous political breach of academic freedom in Texas history. In 1944, UT President Homer Rainey was summarily fired by the regents for his full-throated opposition to their firing of four economics professors with pro-labor New Deal politics and an English professor who’d assigned a controversial novel (which they also then banned). 

His ouster became a national story and prompted broad resistance on campus—including thousands of students who went on strike. The governor at the time, Coke Stevenson, did replace many of the sitting UT regents, but Rainey was never rehired. 

Nowadays, the independence of university leadership—to say nothing of faculty—has been greatly deteriorated by political dictates and targeted pressure campaigns. 

Abbott’s appointed regents are all big campaign donors who sit neatly in his back pocket. And the chancellorships of the big three university systems are now all about to be controlled by ex-Republican politicians: at UT, former state Representative John Zerwas; at A&M, recently departed Comptroller Glenn Hegar; and likely soon at Texas Tech, hardline conservative state Senator Brandon Creighton. 

All this portends a straitjacketed Texas campus culture, one fit for a Soviet Union in which Gorbachev had been succeeded by Pat Buchanan. In recent weeks, cancel crusades have been launched against individuals who merely quoted some of the late Kirk’s more repugnant views on civil rights or, sharpening the point, gun violence. To risk quoting Kirk himself here—espousing the rare view of his that was fit for a decent society: “There’s ugly speech. There’s gross speech. There’s evil speech,” he once opined. “And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment.”

The post Party Discipline appeared first on The Texas Observer.

Trump takes his tariff war to the movies announcing 100% levies on foreign-made films

posted in: All news | 0

By WYATTE GRANTHAM-PHILIPS and PAUL WISEMAN, AP Business Writers

President Donald Trump says he will slap a 100% tax on movies made outside the United States — a vague directive aimed at protecting a business that America already dominates.

Related Articles


Dar Global to launch a $1 billion project in Saudi Arabia in a deal with Trump Organization


What we know about Trump’s peace proposal for Gaza


Trump’s big bill is prompting urgent action in some Democratic states, but not in Republican ones


Airspace violations force NATO to tread a tightrope, deterring Russia without hiking tensions


Trump and Netanyahu meet at the White House as pressure mounts to end the war in Gaza

Claiming that movie production “has been stolen’’ from Hollywood and the U.S., Trump posted on his Truth Social platform that “I will be imposing a 100% tariff on any and all movies that are made outside of the United States.’’

It was unclear how these tariffs would operate, since movies and TV shows can be transmitted digitally without going through ports. Also unclear is what it would mean for U.S. movies filmed on foreign locations — think James Bond and Jason Bourne — or what legal basis the president would claim for imposing the tariffs.

The president had first issued the threat back in May. He has yet to specify when the tariff might go into effect.

Movies are an odd battleground for a U.S. trade war. “Unlike any other country’s film industry, U.S. movies are the most accessible, well-known, and best performing due to the numerous language options and worldwide reach provided by U.S.-based studios,” trade analyst Jacob Jensen of the center-right American Action Forum wrote in a July commentary.

In movie theaters, American-produced movies overwhelmingly dominate the domestic marketplace. Data from the Motion Picture Association also shows that American films made $22.6 billion in exports and $15.3 billion in trade surplus in 2023 — with a recent report noting that these films “generated a positive balance of trade in every major market in the world” for the U.S.

Barry Appleton, co-director of the Center for International Law at the New York Law Center, warned that other countries may retaliate with levies on American movies or other services. In movies, “Brand America is way, way ahead,’’ he said. “What this policy does is actually cook the golden goose that’s laying the golden eggs.’’

Tariffs are Trump’s go-to solution for America’s economic problems, a tool he likes to use to extract concessions from other countries. Reversing decades of U.S. support for lower trade barriers, he’s slapped double-digit tariffs on imports from almost every country on earth. And he’s targeted specific products, including most recently pharmaceuticals, heavy trucks, kitchen cabinets and bathroom vanities.

Unlike other sectors that have recently been targeted by tariffs, movies go beyond physical goods, bringing larger intellectual property ramifications into question.

Here’s what we know.

Why is Trump threatening this steep movie tariff?

Trump has cited national security concerns, a justification he’s similarly used to impose import taxes on certain countries and a range of sector-specific goods.

In May, Trump claimed that the American movie industry is “DYING to a very fast death” as other countries offer “all sorts of incentives” to draw filmmaking away from the U.S.

In recent years, U.S. film and television production has been hampered between setbacks from the COVID-19 pandemic, the Hollywood guild strikes of 2023 and the recent wildfires in the Los Angeles area. Incentive programs have also long-influenced where movies are shot both abroad and within the U.S., with more production leaving California to states like Georgia and New Mexico — as well as countries like Canada.

At the same time, international markets make up a large chunk of Hollywood’s total box office revenue — accounting for over 70% last year, according Heeyon Kim, an assistant professor of strategy at Cornell University. She warned that tariffs and potential retaliation from other countries impacting this industry could result in billions of dollars in lost earnings and thousands of jobs.

“To me, (this) makes just no sense,” Kim previously told The Associated Press, adding that such tariffs could “undermine otherwise a thriving part of the U.S. economy.”

The International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, which represents behind-the-scenes entertainment workers across the U.S. and Canada, said in May that Trump had “correctly recognized” the “urgent threat from international competition” that the American film and television industry faces today. But the union said it instead recommended the administration implement a federal production tax incentive and other provisions to “level the playing field” while not harming the industry overall.

How could a tax on foreign-made movies work?

That’s anyone’s guess.

“Traditional tariffs apply to physical imports crossing borders, but film production primarily involves digital services — shooting, editing and post-production work that happens electronically,” Ann Koppuzha, a lawyer and business law lecturer at Santa Clara University’s Leavey School of Business, explained when Trump first made his May threat.

Koppuzha added that film production is more like an applied service that can be taxed, not tariffed. But taxes require Congressional approval, which could be a challenge even with a Republican majority.

Making a movie is also an incredibly complex — and international — process. It’s common for both large and small films to include production in the U.S. and in other countries, or overseas altogether. Steven Schiffman, a longtime industry veteran and adjunct professor at Georgetown University, pointed to popular titles filmed outside the U.S. — such as Warner Bros’ “Harry Potter” series, which was almost entirely shot in the U.K.

U.S. studios shoot abroad because tax incentives can aid production costs. But a blanket tariff across the board could discourage that or limit options — hurting both Hollywood films and the global industry that helps create them.

“When you make these sort of blanket rules, you’re missing some of the nuance of how production works,” Schiffman said previously. “Sometimes you just need to go to the location, because frankly it’s way too expensive just to try to create in a soundstage”

Could movie tariffs have repercussions on other intellectual property?

Overall, experts warn that the prospect of tariffing foreign-made movies ventures into uncharted waters.

“There’s simply no precedent,” Koppuzha said in May. And while the Trump administration could extend similar threats to other forms of intellectual property, like music, “they’d encounter the same practical hurdles.”

But if successful, some also warn of potential retaliation. Kim pointed to “quotas” that some countries have had to help boost their domestic films by ensuring they get a portion of theater screens, for example.

Many have reduced or suspended such quotas over the years in the name of open trade — but if the U.S. places a sweeping tariff on all foreign-made films, these kinds of quotas could come back, “which would hurt Hollywood film or any of the U.S.-made intellectual property,” Kim said.

And while U.S. dominance in film means “there are fewer substitutes” for retaliation, Schiffman noted that other forms of entertainment — like game development — could see related impacts down the road.

Truck driver accused of being in the US illegally pleads not guilty in Florida crash that killed 3

posted in: All news | 0

By FREIDA FRISARO, Associated Press

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. (AP) — A commercial truck driver accused of making an illegal U-turn that killed three people on a Florida highway last month waived his first appearance hearing Monday and entered a not guilty plea, court records show.

Related Articles


Police remain on scene at burned out Michigan church after shooting and fire leave 4 dead, 8 wounded


Suspected stowaway is found dead in plane’s landing gear at a North Carolina airport


Wall Street drifts as tech stocks climb and oil prices sink


Suspect in Charlie Kirk assassination case faces court hearing


Today in History: September 29, Willie Mays makes “The Catch”

Harjinder Singh, a 28-year-old native of India, is being held in the St. Lucie County Jail in Florida after being denied bond on three counts of vehicular homicide and immigration violations. Singh lived in California and was originally issued a commercial driver’s license in Washington before California issued him one.

Fallout from the crash led to a war of words between the Trump administration and California Gov. Gavin Newsom, and new, stricter rules for non-citizens to obtain commercial drivers licenses. That policy was announced Friday by Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy.

The Florida Highway Patrol said Singh attempted to make a U-turn Aug. 12 from the northbound lanes of Florida’s Turnpike near Fort Pierce. A minivan that was behind Singh’s big rig couldn’t stop and crashed into the truck, killing its driver and two passengers. Singh and a passenger in the truck were not injured.

In a news conference last week, Duffy said an audit conducted after the Florida crash showed the previous rules weren’t strict enough and that a number of states weren’t following them consistently.

He said Singh should have never received a commercial license because of his immigration status.

That review found that commercial driver’s licenses were improperly issued in California, Colorado, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas and Washington. But Duffy said the problems were so egregious in California, where Singh’s license was issued, that he is threatening to pull $160 million in federal funding.

Neither Singh’s attorney, Natalie Knight-Tai, nor prosecutor David Dodd responded to emails seeking comment on the case. Next up for Singh is a pre-trial docket call on Friday in Fort Pierce.

Regulators struggle to keep up with the fast-moving and complicated landscape of AI therapy apps

posted in: All news | 0

By DEVI SHASTRI

In the absence of stronger federal regulation, some states have begun regulating apps that offer AI “therapy” as more people turn to artificial intelligence for mental health advice.

But the laws, all passed this year, don’t fully address the fast-changing landscape of AI software development. And app developers, policymakers and mental health advocates say the resulting patchwork of state laws isn’t enough to protect users or hold the creators of harmful technology accountable.

“The reality is millions of people are using these tools and they’re not going back,” said Karin Andrea Stephan, CEO and co-founder of the mental health chatbot app Earkick.

EDITOR’S NOTE — This story includes discussion of suicide. If you or someone you know needs help, the national suicide and crisis lifeline in the U.S. is available by calling or texting 988. There is also an online chat at 988lifeline.org.

The state laws take different approaches. Illinois and Nevada have banned the use of AI to treat mental health. Utah placed certain limits on therapy chatbots, including requiring them to protect users’ health information and to clearly disclose that the chatbot isn’t human. Pennsylvania, New Jersey and California are also considering ways to regulate AI therapy.

The impact on users varies. Some apps have blocked access in states with bans. Others say they’re making no changes as they wait for more legal clarity.

And many of the laws don’t cover generic chatbots like ChatGPT, which are not explicitly marketed for therapy but are used by an untold number of people for it. Those bots have attracted lawsuits in horrific instances where users lost their grip on reality or took their own lives after interacting with them.

Vaile Wright, who oversees health care innovation at the American Psychological Association, said the apps could fill a need, noting a nationwide shortage of mental health providers, high costs for care and uneven access for insured patients.

Mental health chatbots that are rooted in science, created with expert input and monitored by humans could change the landscape, Wright said.

“This could be something that helps people before they get to crisis,” she said. “That’s not what’s on the commercial market currently.”

That’s why federal regulation and oversight is needed, she said.

Earlier this month, the Federal Trade Commission announced it was opening inquiries into seven AI chatbot companies — including the parent companies of Instagram and Facebook, Google, ChatGPT, Grok (the chatbot on X), Character.AI and Snapchat — on how they “measure, test and monitor potentially negative impacts of this technology on children and teens.” And the Food and Drug Administration is convening an advisory committee Nov. 6 to review generative AI-enabled mental health devices.

Federal agencies could consider restrictions on how chatbots are marketed, limit addictive practices, require disclosures to users that they are not medical providers, require companies to track and report suicidal thoughts, and offer legal protections for people who report bad practices by companies, Wright said.

Not all apps have blocked access

From “companion apps” to “AI therapists” to “mental wellness” apps, AI’s use in mental health care is varied and hard to define, let alone write laws around.

That has led to different regulatory approaches. Some states, for example, take aim at companion apps that are designed just for friendship, but don’t wade into mental health care. The laws in Illinois and Nevada ban products that claim to provide mental health treatment outright, threatening fines up to $10,000 in Illinois and $15,000 in Nevada.

But even a single app can be tough to categorize.

Earkick’s Stephan said there is still a lot that is “very muddy” about Illinois’ law, for example, and the company has not limited access there.

Stephan and her team initially held off calling their chatbot, which looks like a cartoon panda, a therapist. But when users began using the word in reviews, they embraced the terminology so the app would show up in searches.

Last week, they backed off using therapy and medical terms again. Earkick’s website described its chatbot as “Your empathetic AI counselor, equipped to support your mental health journey,” but now it’s a “chatbot for self care.”

Still, “we’re not diagnosing,” Stephan maintained.

Users can set up a “panic button” to call a trusted loved one if they are in crisis and the chatbot will “nudge” users to seek out a therapist if their mental health worsens. But it was never designed to be a suicide prevention app, Stephan said, and police would not be called if someone told the bot about thoughts of self-harm.

Stephan said she’s happy that people are looking at AI with a critical eye, but worried about states’ ability to keep up with innovation.

“The speed at which everything is evolving is massive,” she said.

Other apps blocked access immediately. When Illinois users download the AI therapy app Ash, a message urges them to email their legislators, arguing “misguided legislation” has banned apps like Ash “while leaving unregulated chatbots it intended to regulate free to cause harm.”

A spokesperson for Ash did not respond to multiple requests for an interview.

Mario Treto Jr., secretary of the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, said the goal was ultimately to make sure licensed therapists were the only ones doing therapy.

“Therapy is more than just word exchanges,” Treto said. “It requires empathy, it requires clinical judgment, it requires ethical responsibility, none of which AI can truly replicate right now.”

One chatbot app is trying to fully replicate therapy

In March, a Dartmouth College-based team published the first known randomized clinical trial of a generative AI chatbot for mental health treatment.

The goal was to have the chatbot, called Therabot, treat people diagnosed with anxiety, depression or eating disorders. It was trained on vignettes and transcripts written by the team to illustrate an evidence-based response.

The study found users rated Therabot similar to a therapist and had meaningfully lower symptoms after eight weeks compared with people who didn’t use it. Every interaction was monitored by a human who intervened if the chatbot’s response was harmful or not evidence-based.

Nicholas Jacobson, a clinical psychologist whose lab is leading the research, said the results showed early promise but that larger studies are needed to demonstrate whether Therabot works for large numbers of people.

“The space is so dramatically new that I think the field needs to proceed with much greater caution that is happening right now,” he said.

Many AI apps are optimized for engagement and are built to support everything users say, rather than challenging peoples’ thoughts the way therapists do. Many walk the line of companionship and therapy, blurring intimacy boundaries therapists ethically would not.

Therabot’s team sought to avoid those issues.

The app is still in testing and not widely available. But Jacobson worries about what strict bans will mean for developers taking a careful approach. He noted Illinois had no clear pathway to provide evidence that an app is safe and effective.

“They want to protect folks, but the traditional system right now is really failing folks,” he said. “So, trying to stick with the status quo is really not the thing to do.”

Regulators and advocates of the laws say they are open to changes. But today’s chatbots are not a solution to the mental health provider shortage, said Kyle Hillman, who lobbied for the bills in Illinois and Nevada through his affiliation with the National Association of Social Workers.

“Not everybody who’s feeling sad needs a therapist,” he said. But for people with real mental health issues or suicidal thoughts, “telling them, ‘I know that there’s a workforce shortage but here’s a bot’ — that is such a privileged position.”

This story has been corrected to show that Therabot is not a company and to delete an incorrect reference to Dartmouth as a university.

The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.