Youth-led unrest in Madagascar has left at least 22 people dead, UN says

posted in: All news | 0

ANTANANARIVO, Madagascar (AP) — Violence surrounding youth-led anti-government protests in the Indian Ocean island of Madagascar over the past several days has killed at least 22 people, the United Nations’ human rights office said Monday.

The U.N. agency blamed a “violent response” by security forces for some of the deaths in the unrest that started Thursday over water and power cuts.

More than 100 people have been injured in the protests that have mirrored the Gen Z-led anti-government demonstrations seen recently in Nepal and Kenya.

Protesters and bystanders were killed by security forces in Madagascar, but some of the deaths also came in violence and looting by gangs not associated with the protesters, the U.N. rights office said in a statement.

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


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


Top diplomats of North Korea and China agree to deepen ties and push back at the United States


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

Federal indictment charges 3 activists with alleged ‘doxing’ of ICE agent in Los Angeles

posted in: All news | 0

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Three activists opposed to President Donald Trump’s immigration raids in Los Angeles have been indicted on charges of illegally “ doxing ” a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent, federal prosecutors said.

Investigators said the women followed the agent home, livestreamed their pursuit and then posted the agent’s address online, according to a statement Friday from the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Once they arrived at the agent’s home, prosecutors allege the women shouted “ICE lives on your street and you should know,” according to the indictment.

The defendants are each charged with one count of conspiracy and one count of publicly disclosing the personal information of a federal agent, the statement said.

Prosecutors said a 25-year-old woman from Panorama City, California, is free on $5,000 bond. A 38-year-old resident of Aurora, Colorado, who is also charged in a separate case with assault on a federal officer, is in custody without bond.

And authorities are searching for the third defendant, a 37-year-old woman from Riverside, California.

“Our brave federal agents put their lives on the line every day to keep our nation safe,” Acting U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli said in a statement. “The conduct of these defendants are deeply offensive to law enforcement officers and their families. If you threaten, dox, or harm in any manner one of our agents or employees, you will face prosecution and prison time.”

Doxing is a typically malicious practice that involves gathering private or identifying information and releasing it online without the person’s permission, usually in an attempt to harass, threaten, shame or exact revenge.

Related Articles


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


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


When food banks need bread, a network of 900 home bakers answers the call


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

Attorneys for the women could not immediately be reached on Monday. An email was sent to the Federal Public Defender’s Office asking if its attorneys are representing the defendants.

According to the indictment, the three women last month followed an ICE agent from the federal building in downtown Los Angeles to the agent’s residence in Baldwin Park east of LA. They livestreamed the entire event, court documents say.

In July, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem threatened to prosecute people for publishing federal agents’ personal information in response to fliers in Portland, Oregon, that called for people to collect intel on ICE.

Critics of the Trump administration’s raids have expressed outrage over federal agents wearing masks and refusing to identify themselves in public while arresting immigrants in California.

Last week, California became the first state to ban most law enforcement officers, including federal immigration agents, from covering their faces while conducting official business.

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.