As sexual assault cases proliferate, judges must weigh accusers’ requests for anonymity against the tradition of open courts and fairness toward defendants.

By Graham Bowley @ NYTimes.com, May 14

The man said he was 14 years old when he was sexually assaulted by the actor Kevin Spacey in the early 1980s. Last year he filed a lawsuit against Mr. Spacey in which he sought to maintain anonymity, identifying himself in court papers only as “C.D.”

Earlier this year the judge in the case, which is being heard in the Southern District in New York, ordered the man’s lawyers to identify him privately to Mr. Spacey’s lawyers. And this month the judge, Lewis A. Kaplan, went further: he ruled that C.D. would have to identify himself publicly if he wanted to continue on to trial.

The man’s lawyers responded Thursday that he would not, writing that the “sudden unwanted attention that revelation of his identity will cause is simply too much for him to bear.” They said in a letter to the court that they expect him to be removed from the case — which involves another plaintiff, who is using his real name — but suggested that they plan to pursue an appeal [....]

A mainstream outlet accepted my pitch on what media refuses to say about US empire – then refused to let me say it. By Mathew Alford.

"If you are fully vaccinated, you are protected, and you can start doing the things that you stopped doing because of the pandemic,” the C.D.C. said  ... Fauci: “We’ve got to liberalize the restrictions so people can feel like they’re getting back to some normalcy,” “You can’t inhibit people from doing the things they want to do, which is one of the reasons they wanted to get vaccinated in the first place, because other people are not getting vaccinated,” he added... " ... The move could raise alarms among more cautious Americans, who may be more reluctant to engage in public activities when more people are unmasked. There is no way to know who is vaccinated and who is not, and the majority of the population is not yet fully vaccinated. ...

Demarcus Adams, 21, Jarius Brunson, 22, and Brandon Miller, 22, all enlisted members of the U.S. Army and stationed at Fort Campbell, were arrested Tuesday.

@ WSMV TV, Updated: 4:43 PM EDT May 11, 2021

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — Three Fort Campbell soldiers were charged with conspiracy and offenses relating to the illegal purchase and transfer of dozens of firearms to Chicago, according to a news release from the U.S. Attorney’s office.

Demarcus Adams, 21, Jarius Brunson, 22, and Brandon Miller, 22, all enlisted members of the U.S. Army and stationed at Fort Campbell, were arrested Tuesday by ATF agents and agents of the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Division, Acting U.S. Attorney Mary Jane Stewart for the Middle District of Tennessee announced on Tuesday.

A criminal complaint obtained Monday charged each defendant with transferring a firearm to an out-of-state resident, making false statements during the purchase of a firearm, engaging in the business without a firearms license, wire fraud, money laundering and conspiracy to commit Title 18 offenses.

According to the criminal complaint, the investigation began on March 26 when Chicago police responded to a mass shooting incident. During the incident, multiple people were shot and one person died. During the investigation, multiple firearms were recovered from the shooting scene and five of the firearms were found to have been recently purchased from Federal Firearms Licensed dealers in Clarksville. Adams, Brunson and Miller were identified as the majority purchases of these firearms.

A search of firearm transaction records from FFLs in the Clarksville region determined that since September 2019, the trio had purchased 91 firearms from multiple dealers in Clarksville, Oak Grove, KY, Hopkinsville, KY, Fort Campbell, KY and Paducah, KY. The majority of the firearms were purchased during the last five months. The criminal complaint also alleges that after the firearms were purchased, Miller would provide them to people he knew in Chicago [....]

"It's very obvious that nobody involved in [the bill] consulted a First Amendment lawyer," says TechFreedom's Berin Szóka.

By Scott Shackford @ Reason.com, May 5

 [....] The bill, S.B. 7072, would allow for fines of up to $250,000 per day for candidates for statewide offices, $25,000 a day for lower offices if an online platform refuses to host a candidate. The bill also prohibits shadow banning, the practice of allowing a person to continue using the platform while limiting who can see their posts, for political candidates during their races. There's an exception carved out for obscene content. The bill covers online platforms that have annual gross revenues of at least $100 million or at least 100 million global users.

DeSantis is expected to sign the bill, which is scheduled to go into effect on July 1, but will almost certainly be challenged in court.

The bill is getting the most media attention for this political component, essentially ordering private online tech companies to serve the communication needs of politicians. Critics of the legislation argue it's a violation of the First Amendment rights of tech companies, who have the power to decide whose messages they want to host. The bill attempts to get around this concern by simply declaring that social media companies "should be treated similarly to common carriers" like phone companies, an argument some find compelling. [....]

... Sarah Longwell, a Republican strategist who has been conducting focus groups of Trump voters for years, said that since the election she had found an increased openness to what she calls “QAnon curious,” a willingness to entertain conspiracy theories about stolen elections and a deep state. “A lot of these base voters are living in a post-truth nihilism where you believe in nothing ...