A judge rules that Activision is entitled to summary judgment in a trademark lawsuit brought by the manufacturer of military vehicles.

Call of Duty maker Activision has prevailed in a closely watched trademark dispute brought by AM General, the government contractor for Humvees. On Tuesday, a New York federal judge responded favorably to Activision's argument that it had a First Amendment right to depict contemporary warfare in its game by featuringHumvees.

"If realism is an artistic goal, then the presence in modern warfare games of vehicles employed by actual militaries undoubtedly furthers that goal," writes U.S. District Court Judge George B. Daniels in granting summary judgment in favor of Activision.

The video game publisherfought AM General's claimsalong with Major League Gaming Corp., a professional esports organization. The dispute was potentially worth tens of millions of dollars, and the discussion attracted intellectual property professors and the Electronic Software Association to weigh in with amicus briefs.

One of the reasons why the dispute became such a big deal was its potential to complicate a test established in Rogers v. Grimaldi, a 1989 decision that resulted from a lawsuit brought by the actress Ginger Rogers over the Fellini film Ginger and Fred. The test directs judges to examine whether use of a mark has artistic relevance, and if so, whether the work is explicitly misleading. But in thisCall of Dutycase,AM General argued that trademark laws hardly give way to the First Amendment when an infringing work is expressive, and when dealing with famous marks, judges should heed an additional eight-factor test for consumer confusion set forth in Polaroid v. Polarad. That's because, AM General told the judge, the "explicitly misleading" prong could be satisfied upon particularly compelling evidence of the likelihood of confusion.

Judge Daniels decides to travel down this road, and after coming to the conclusion that use of Humvees inCall of Dutyhas some artistic relevance, he ends up with a more surprising finding: The Polaroid factors actually favorActivision.

He acknowledges that there's strength in plaintiff's mark (i.e., consumers recognize Humvees) but doesn't see much similarity in how the two sides are using the mark. One is selling vehicles to the military while the other is creating realistic modern warfare video games. As for proximity of the products, while AM General may license out the rights to depict Humvees in games and toys, the judge isn't impressed because that's not its central purpose as a business. Then, there's the evidence of actual confusion. The judge acknowledges an expert's survey that shows some confusion (less than 20 percent), but says it tips only slightly in AM's favor.

One of the more notable Polaroid factors here is good faith, basically an analysis of why Activision decided to adopt Humvees into its game. AM general pointed to "documents, emails and witness testimony," the presence of Humvees decorated with Call of Duty logos at promotional events, and statements in user guides where consumers were allegedly told that Activision either owns or licenses the Humvee IP.

And yet it all fails as Daniels concludes that these "three clutches of circumstantial evidence, even if afforded the benefit of all reasonable inferences in Plaintiff's favor, do not demonstrate a desire to 'sow confusion between the two companies' products.'"

Here's the full opinion.

"To the extent that any of the Polaroid factors are satisfied such that a modicum of confusion might be present Plaintiff nonetheless has failed to present sufficient evidence to defeat summary judgment," writes the judge who then takes up whether Activision has offered a "persuasive explanation" of its use.

Here, that persuasive explanation is "realism," given Humvees' widespread use by modern militaries.

Daniels writes, "[A]ssuming arguendo that realism is the only artistic interest that Call of Duty games possess an assumption potentially belied by the presence of narrative campaign modes in all of the challenged games it is also true that realism can have artistic merit in itself."

Read the original here:

'Call of Duty' Wins First Amendment Victory Over Use of Humvees - Hollywood Reporter

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to ourTerms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sentvia e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

See original here:

Letter to the editor: Wolf violated First Amendment, Civil Rights Act - TribLIVE

When McKinney Mayor George Fuller issued a stay-at-home orderon Thursday, First Liberty Institute, a legal organization committed to defending religious freedom, took notice. In a letter to the mayor, the organization asserted that the order violates the First Amendments Free Exercise Clause and the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

First Libertys general counsel, Michael Berry, sent the letter to Fuller on Friday morning asking him to more narrowly tailor his order so as not to burden churches and other religious institutions.

Within hours of receiving the letter, McKinney city officials changed the order.

We were not surprised with how they responded, but we were surprised with how quickly it came. We certainly commend the city of McKinney, Berry told The Texan.

The order had required that religious and worship services be conducted only online or by teleconference and limited those conducting the service to ten people. It was changed to allow religious services by video or teleconference, or by other means that comply with the CDCs guidelines for social distancing.

First Liberty had advised churches to follow the White House and CDC guidelines for slowing the spread of the virus.

Under the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the government can only substantially burden the free exercise of religion if it has a compelling governmental interest and does so by the least restrictive means possible.

You can ensure health and safety but do so in a way that doesnt violate the federal or state law or the Constitution, Berry said.

Berry pointed out that the first order, before amended, placed a substantial burden on religious practices and that the city did not use the least restrictive means available to it.

In contrast to its limit on churches, McKinneys previous order did not put a ten-person limit on other locations listed as essential, like the number of staff preparing take-out food at a restaurant or on workers in child care facilities.

However, First Liberty asserts that religious exercise is an essential and constitutionally protected activity listed in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Berry pointed to creative ways that churches were staying within the CDC guidelines while still meeting together, like drive-in worship services where participants stayed in their cars to avoid contact with others and gathering in small groups of ten or less. Those were prohibited by McKinneys prior order.

Additionally, McKinney, found within Collin County, issued an order that was more restrictive than the one issued by Collin County Judge Chris Hill. The county has issued an order utilizing the least restrictive means possible and encouraging the highest level of personal responsibility.

It did not specifically limit religious gatherings but encouraged residents to avoid gathering in groups of more than ten.

When two orders are in conflict, Berry said, the county order supersedes according to Texas Local Government Code Section 418.108 (h).

When asked about other orders that might be problematic, Berry said they would be taking a look at orders all around Texas and the country. A citizen who believes an order in their county or city is unconstitutionally burdening the freedom of religion can consult the guidance on their website and is welcome to bring it to the attention of First Liberty.

A free bi-weekly commentary on current events by Konni Burton.

Here is the original post:

Accused of First Amendment Violation Against Churches, City of McKinney Amends Stay-At-Home Order - The Texan

Since senators introduced the EARN IT Act (S. 3398) in early March, EFF has called attention to the many ways in which the bill would be a disaster for Internet users free speech and security.

Weve explained how the EARN IT Act could be used to drastically undermine encryption. Although the bill doesnt use the word encryption in its text, it gives government officials like Attorney General William Barr the power to compel online service providers to break encryption or be exposed to potentially crushing legal liability.

The bill also violates the Constitutions protections for free speech and privacy. As Congress considers the EARN IT Actwhich would require online platforms to comply with to-be-determined best practices in order to preserve certain protections from criminal and civil liability for user-generated content under Section 230 (47 U.S.C. 230)its important to highlight the bills First and Fourth Amendment problems.

As we explained in a letter to Congress, the EARN IT Act violates the First Amendment in several ways.

1. The bills broad categories of best practices for online service providers amount to an impermissible regulation of editorial activity protected by the First Amendment.

The bills stated purpose is to prevent, reduce, and respond to the online sexual exploitation of children. However, it doesnt directly target child sexual abuse material (CSAM, also referred to as child pornography) or child sex trafficking ads. (CSAM is universally condemned, and there is a broad framework of existing laws that seek to eradicate it, as we explain in the Fourth Amendment section below).

Instead, the bill would allow the government to go much further and regulate how online service providers operate their platforms and manage user-generated contentthe very definition of editorial activity in the Internet age. Just as Congress cannot pass a law demanding news media cover specific stories or present the news a certain way, it similarly cannot direct how and whether online platforms host user-generated content.

2. The EARN IT Acts selective removal of Section 230 immunity creates an unconstitutional condition.

Congress created Section 230 and, therefore, has wide authority to modify or repeal the law without violating the First Amendment (though as a policy matter, we dont support that). However, the Supreme Court has said that the government may not condition the granting of a governmental privilege on individuals or entities doing things that amount to a violation of their First Amendment rights.

Thus, Congress may not selectively grant Section 230 immunity only to online platforms that comply with best practices that interfere with their First Amendment right to make editorial choices regarding their hosting of user-generated content.

3. The EARN IT Act fails strict scrutiny.

The bill seeks to hold online service providers responsible for a particular type of content and the choices they make regarding user-generated content, and so it must satisfy the strictest form of judicial scrutiny.

Although the content the EARN IT Act seeks to regulate is abhorrent and the governments interest in stopping the creation and distribution of that content is compelling, the First Amendment still requires that the law be narrowly tailored to address those weighty concerns. Yet, given the bills broad scope, it will inevitably force online platforms to censor the constitutionally protected speech of their users.

The EARN IT Act violates the Fourth Amendment by turning online platforms into government actors that search users accounts without a warrant based on probable cause.

The bill states, Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act shall be construed to require a provider of an interactive computer service to search, screen, or scan for instances of online child sexual exploitation. Nevertheless, given the bills stated goal to, among other things, prevent online child sexual exploitation, its likely that the best practices will effectively coerce online platforms into proactively scanning users accounts for content such as CSAM or child sex trafficking ads.

Contrast this with what happens today: if an online service provider obtains actual knowledge of an apparent or imminent violation of anti-child pornography laws, its required to make a report to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Childrens (NCMEC) CyberTipline. NCMEC then forwards actionable reports to the appropriate law enforcement agencies.

Under this current statutory scheme, an influential decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, written by then-Judge Neil Gorsuch, held that NCMEC is not simply an agent of the government, it is a government entity established by act of Congress with unique powers and duties that are granted only to the government.

On the other hand, courts have largely rejected arguments that online service providers are agents of the government in this context. Thats because the government argues that companies voluntarily scan their own networks for private purposes, namely to ensure that their services stay safe for all users. Thus, courts typically rule that these scans are considered private searches that are not subject to the Fourth Amendments warrant requirement. Under this doctrine, NCMEC and law enforcement agencies also do not need a warrant to view users account content already searched by the companies.

However, the EARN IT Acts best practices may effectively coerce online platforms into proactively scanning users accounts in order to keep the companies legal immunity under Section 230. Not only would this result in invasive scans that risk violating all users privacy and security, companies would arguably become government agents subject to the Fourth Amendment. In analogous cases, courts have found private parties to be government agents when the government knew of and acquiesced in the intrusive conduct and the party performing the search intended to assist law enforcement efforts or to further his own ends.

Thus, to the extent that online service providers scan users accounts to comply with the EARN IT Act, and do so without a probable cause warrant, defendants would have a much stronger argument that these scans violate the Fourth Amendment. Given Congress goal of protecting children from online sexual exploitation, it should not risk the suppression of evidence by effectively coercing companies to scan their networks.

Presently, the EARN IT Act has been introduced in the Senate and assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which held a hearing on March 11. The next step is for the committee to consider amendments during a markup proceeding (though given the current state of affairs its unclear when that will be). We urge you to contact your members of Congress and ask them to reject the bill.

Take Action

PROTECT OUR SPEECH AND SECURITY ONLINE

Go here to read the rest:

The EARN IT Act Violates the Constitution - EFF

While mostly bluster, its a bullying attempt to intimidate the press says PEN America

(New York, NY) Donald Trumps presidential campaign this week sent a cease-and-desist letter to television stations airing ads critical of the way he has handled the coronavirus crisis, threatening to revoke their operating licenses. PEN Americas Nora Benavidez, director of U.S. free expression programs, issued the following statement.

Silencing critics is clearly a knee-jerk reaction for the president. He has a long history of tryingtoexploit the legal systemto scare his supposed adversaries. Its a troubling practice and a violation of the First Amendment. In the midst of an election andwhile theU.S.is grappling withan unprecedented public healthcrisis, its appalling for the president to focus in on using his influence to silence a critical television ad that is unquestionably protected political speech. The fact that this threatened action wouldnever hold up in court actually exposes it for whatit is: a bullying attempt to intimidatethepress and silencethepresidents critics.

###

PEN America stands at the intersection of literature and human rights to protect open expression in the United States and worldwide. We champion the freedom to write, recognizing the power of the word to transform the world. Our mission is to unite writers and their allies to celebrate creative expression and defend the liberties that make it possible.

CONTACT: Stephen Fee, Director of Communications, [emailprotected], +1 202 309 8892white house

Read more:

Trump Threat to Pull TV Licenses Over Coronavirus Ad Violation of First Amendment - PEN America

I confess to a certain self-interest in today's column. The media, especially newspapers, are in trouble. Conservatives like myself have been relentless in attacking their collective bias over the years, but as more of them fold or reduce staff, it is crucial the institution be saved.

Margaret Sullivan, a columnist for The Washington Post, has suggested that federal bailout money should be allocated to newspapers. That is an amusing suggestion since the world's richest man, Amazon's Jeff Bezos, owns the Post. He could infuse some of his own money to prop up that reliably liberal paper.In an age when fewer schoolchildren are taught civics, it is useful to recall that the press is the only profession mentioned in the Constitution's First Amendment, which specifically forbids Congress from "abridging" freedom of the press.The Founders were aware of newspapers' tendency to print inaccurate, even outrageous, stories, but as Benjamin Franklin noted: "I am ... for freedom of the press, and against all violations of the constitution to silence by force and not by reason the complaints or criticisms, just or unjust, of our citizens against the conduct of their agents."Newspapers then and one could argue since, along with modern television have been full of factual errors, innuendo and slanted coverage (check out the corrections section of The New York Times over the years, and those are only the mistakes they admit to), but no country has a freer press than the United States. Notice that the first entities totalitarians seek to shut down or take over are newspapers and television stations, which ought to tell us something.In a lengthy Vanity Fair article titled "Can the News Industry Survive Coronavirus," Charlotte Klein, quotes New York Times media columnist Ben Smith, who advocates "a painful but necessary shift" for saving the news business.Smith writes, "Abandon most for-profit local newspapers whose business model no longer works, and move as fast as possible to a national network of nimble new online newsrooms."Facebook has pledged $100 million to help struggling news outlets weather the financial storm caused in part by advertisers not buying ads because of the coronavirus pandemic.Financial subsidies are only a partial solution, like quitting smoking but refusing treatment when diagnosed with lung cancer. The real problem for the major media is the perception that their reporters are biased. It doesn't matter how many times they deny their biases or the frequency with which it's pointed out to them, especially by conservative organizations. The point is that as in any business if customers aren't buying your product, denying the reason why only prolongs your company's downfall.A 2018 Columbia Journalism Review story reported on a Knight Foundation-Gallup Poll: "A majority of those who were surveyed said they had lost trust in the media in recent years, and more than 30 percent of those who identified themselves as being on the conservative end of the spectrum said they had not only lost faith in the media, but they 'expect that change to be permanent.' According to a separate Gallup poll from earlier this year that tracked trust in major institutions, newspapers and television news were among the lowest, exceeded only by Congress."Among the solutions would be for the major media to address the perceived bias by including more conservatives and serious religious people on their staffs as part of "diversity" campaigns. No industry that ignores the concerns of large numbers of the public can long endure. It is vital to a free society, as the Founders believed, that a vibrant, free and, yes, responsible press endure, but the media can only save itself. That salvation will come, if it comes at all, not through financial aid alone, or even mainly, but by media owners coming to their senses and honestly addressing the concerns of people who no longer believe their message.

Cal Thomas can be reached at cthomas@wctrib.com.

Continue reading here:

Cal Thomas: How to save the media - West Central Tribune

A federal judge has ruled that a lawsuit filed against Henrico County officials by a former firefighter who was fired after she was arrested and charged with rioting at President Donald Trumps inauguration can proceed.

Rosa Dianne Roncales, who lost her job in April 2017, filed suit last year alleging her First Amendment free speech rights and her due process rights under the 14th Amendment were violated. The suit named four former fire department superiors and the county as defendants.

In a 36-page memorandum Tuesday, U.S. District Judge M. Hannah Lauck dismissed Henrico County as a defendant but ruled that Roncales suit could proceed against four of her former supervisors in the Henrico Fire Department on the First Amendment claim and against one of the officials on the due process claim.

She is represented by lawyers Nicholas Simopoulos and Jeffrey Fogel. Simopoulos said Wednesday that the ruling means the suit can proceed to discovery and more can be learned about the circumstances surrounding her firing.

Roncales suit says she attended the Jan. 20, 2017, inauguration protest on her own time and wore no clothing or other markings that would identify her as an employee or member of the Henrico Fire Department.

Although Ms. Roncales engaged in no criminal activity, she was swept up in a large-scale arrest of several hundred people by the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department and, subsequently, charged with several offenses. The charges were later dismissed, says the complaint.

The suit says she reported the arrest to a superior on Jan. 23, 2017. While so doing, Ms. Roncales requested that this confidential personnel information not be disseminated. Nonetheless ... her report was immediately disseminated throughout the HFD.

She alleges she was terminated for purported discrepancies in information she provided them during an administrative investigation of her arrest and the information likely provided them by police in Washington, D.C.

She said when questioned by fire officials, she was asked why she went to the protest and whether she agreed with the political view of the protesters. She said that yes, she did agree with the political view of the protesters.

She explained that she had no intention to break the law and when she saw others doing so, she made every effort to get away from them, says the suit.

She denies there were any discrepancies. She says she answered all questions truthfully during the administrative investigation and that the police had given Henrico County inaccurate information.

Her complaint stated that after she properly reported her arrest to a supervisor and he assured her it would be kept confidential, she began receiving phone calls and text messages from members of the Henrico and Petersburg fire departments Roncales was a Petersburg firefighter before joining the Henrico department.

The defendants allegedly asked Roncales why she attempted to disguise herself during the protest. Roncales said she denied disguising herself and said she wore simple, nondescript black clothing because she feared being doxxed by the Alt-right.

Doxxed is a term used to describe the research and publication of personal details so others can target and harass that individual.

Roncales suit says she had never been the subject of any discipline in the past while working in Petersburg or with Henrico and said she was told when fired that her actions had made things harder for female firefighters.

On April 4, 2017, an email was sent out to the entire fire department announcing Roncales termination.

Ms. Roncaless engagement in this protected speech outweighed and, in fact, had no impact upon any legitimate interest the defendants may have had in the operation of the fire department, the suit alleges.

Her suit also alleges that she was deprived of the fair and unbiased opportunity for a hearing, whether name-clearing or otherwise, to rebut the defendants representations, and to present her side of the story.

Her suit seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages and the awarding of attorney fees and costs.

In her memorandum Tuesday, Lauck dismissed Henrico County as a defendant, holding that the suit failed to allege an unconstitutional policy or custom that would make the county liable.

Lauck also dismissed the due process claim against the county but allowed that claim to proceed against one of the defendants.

Read the rest here:

Judge: Suit filed by former Henrico firefighter who was fired after being charged with rioting during Trump's inauguration can proceed - Richmond.com

Were hearing two views as the death toll for coronavirus mounts.

One is that of an irresponsible minister, Tony Spell of Central in suburban Baton Rouge.

"This is an attack on religion. This an attack on our constitutional rights. We have a constitutional right to assemble and to gather and there are no laws that I am breaking," he said Tuesday, before leading another service putting the lives of all attending at risk.

Heres a more sensible Christian view.

If I thought this was an attack on religious freedom, Id be right there with him, says Tony Perkins. Its a directive for the sake of public health not to meet.

Perkins, a former state representative, makes his home nearby and for his day job leads the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C.

He is right to reject the absolutist and dangerous actions of Spell. Already charged by prosecutors with six counts of violating the emergency declaration, handcuffs cannot and should not be far behind for the defiant Life Tabernacle Church pastor.

The argument that the First Amendment to the Constitution forbids any and all government actions in terms of speech, religion and assembly is just wrong. The famous phrase used by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. of the U.S. Supreme Court was that there is no free-speech right to yell Fire! in a crowded theater.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact, often attributed to President Abraham Lincoln to justify emergency actions during the Civil War, was used in a high court opinion in the 1940s.

In terms of law and society, the Central pastor is wrong.

Here, Attorney General Jeff Landry has supported that the stay-at-home orders and limits on public assemblies. We agree with him and Gov. John Bel Edwards that public-health emergencies require strong action.

What is at work here, exploited by Spell, is the genuine fear of a faceless threat. People of faith naturally wish to come together as they are used to, seeking divine guidance and inspiration. Those days will come again, but for the moment prudence must be the rule.

One of those dying of coronavirus complications was a well-known Episcopalian minister, the Rev. William Barnwell of New Orleans. Friends remembered an important sermon in which he rejected a fearful and bleak view of human nature.

We are creatures made in the very image of God. And we can live the way we were created to live, especially with the help of a loving community, Barnwell said.

Those called to the ministry have a leadership responsibility not only to God but to their communities. A loving community of believers does not gather in the face of a deadly communicable disease. Those who defy legitimate public-safety orders should be arrested.

See the original post:

Our Views: Tony Spell is a minister who's a threat to life and should be locked up - The Advocate

Who is Joyce Bernann McKinney?

To the family of 91-year-old Gennady Bolotsky, McKinney is a 69-year-old woman accused of running over and killing the Holocaust survivor from Ukraine with her truck as he walked his dog in the San Fernando Valley last summer.

To the Los Angeles County mental-health system, shes the patient it received after a judge ruled her mentally incompetent to stand trial.

British tabloid readers of the 1970s, well, to them McKinney was a former Miss Wyoming, the woman behind the so-called Manacled Mormon case in which she was accused of flying to London and kidnapping a Mormon missionary she was infatuated with before the charges went away.

More than a decade ago, she popped up in the news again, this time as tabloid and mainstream-media fodder for reportedly hiring a South Korean firm for $50,000-plus to clone her dead pit bull Booger from skin cells, a move that reaped her five Booger puppies.

Hers is indeed a flamboyant tale, a wild wave of a life that has left its mark on others.

In a 2010 documentary, Tabloid, parts of McKinneys life play out over 87 minutes the slices about the Manacled Mormon case and her public re-emergence years later as the owner of the five cloned pit bulls.

She is a willing participant of the film: bubbly, confident, bright.

Directed by Oscar-winner Errol Morris, Tabloid has McKinney narrating her early days as a North Carolina girl and then as a Wyoming beauty queen who met and fell in love with Kirk Anderson when both attended Brigham Young University in Utah.

In September 1977, Tabloid explains, with Anderson on his Mormon mission in London, McKinney followed him there with an accomplice.

Using a fake handgun and chloroform, the documentary says banking off of news reports at time, the pair allegedly kidnapped Anderson outside a Mormon meeting house, taking him to a cottage and handcuffing him to a bed with London police later arresting her.

She posted bail and, while awaiting trial, became a sensation in British tabloids.

While in London, in 1978, she was photographed with Keith Moon of The Who, one of the worlds all-time drummers, at a premiere of the film Saturday Night Fever. They are cheek to cheek, with one of McKinneys arms around his neck as if she had pulled him close.

McKinney and the accomplice, a friend, slippped out of the country. But, The New York Times and other outlets reported, authorities ending up declining to pursue their extraditions.

I mean, I could never understand the publics fascination with my love life, McKinney says in the Tabloid doc. Im not a movie star. Im just a person, a human being that was caught in an extraordinary circumstance.

In 2011, McKinney attended a question-and-answer session in Salt Lake City following a screening of Tabloid with a pit bull in tow.

I had no idea they were going to do this trashy movie, she told the audience, according to the Salt Lake City Tribune.

Hollywood, she figured, might tell her story as the love story she preferred.

Kirsten Dunst is running around all over Hollywood saying, I have to have this part! she said that day. Im more a Katie Heigl type shes an ex-Mormon like me.

McKinney ended upsuing the Tabloid filmmakers for defamation, invasion of privacy and fraud.

The filmmakers showed the court a release McKinney signed. Their lawyer also argued that she was a limited public figure and that they were covered under the First Amendment to document her story.

The California Court of Appeal tossed out the suit in October 2013, records show: Judge James Steele found the making of the documentary was undeniably defendants exercise of their free-speech rights.

Early in the project, producer Mark Lipson recalled, McKinney gave him a tour of her Riverside home she wanted to show him her truck, which she said had been broken into with research materials for a book about her life stolen.

Lipson took photos of the truck and of parts of her property. Some of those images appear in the final credits of Tabloid.

McKinney was living in borderline squalor, he said. Her day-in, day-out living just seemed to be kind of extreme.

Then, once again, McKinney slipped from public view.

A couple of years ago, authorities in Los Angeles County started coming in contact with her.

Im very familiar with Joyce McKinney, said Stacie Wood-Levin, a senior animal-control officer for the Burbank Animal Shelter. Weve had many check-condition calls on the animals over the years.

The calls came in, Wood-Levin said, from those who reported they had seen dogs confined in crates in McKinneys white pickup with a camper cover.

McKinney had named the five puppies after herself and the South Korean scientists who created them: Booger Hong, Booger Lee, Booger McKinney, Booger Park, and Booger Ra.

Three of those pit bulls would end up at the Burbank shelter, with two euthanized for health and behavioral problems. It is unclear what happened to the fourth and fifth pit bulls.

Just Booger Park, perhaps the last of the worlds first commercially cloned pet dogs, waits these days at the shelter to be adopted.

He had serious behavior issues around other dogs. At 11 years old, he has heath concerns, too.

To the shelter workers, hes just Park.

Park has a sensitive stomach, but he loves to eat, and he loves to play, said Stacey Deveikis, a shelter volunteer. Behavior-wise, hes very sweet.

The shelters website hints at Parks past:

I am a male, gray pit bull terrier mix. The shelter staff think I am about 11 years old. I have been at the shelter since Jun 21, 2019, it says.

Owner unable to care (of him) any longer. Very sweet and affectionate boy. Really spry for his age.

A smiley face emoticon.

He sadly lived in a crate for the last several years, so he will need help with some training/house-breaking. Would do just fine in an apartment, even a studio apartment as long as you have a nice cozy couch for him to nap on.

At 5:35 a.m. on June 17, surveillance video from the Valley Village neighborhood caught Bolotsky getting struck while walking his small, white dog across Magnolia Boulevard.

In the video, the truck plows into the 91-year-old while he is in the middle of a crosswalk. The driver, later determined by police to be McKinney, pauses for a moment, then continues on.

Bolotskys dog is hit, too, but ended up being OK.

The suspect was gone.

Bolotskys death made headlines, with his family appearing on television. There were shots of the suspects truck, too.

I had over 20 leads to follow up on the next day, LAPD Detective Holly Fredo said.

On June 21, a tip that came in was pretty good: There was a truck police might be interested in parked near Hollywood Burbank Airport.

The hit-and-run was just one of dozens of cases Detective Fredo was working. Not all are resolved within days.

Fredo and another detective immediately went out to take a look at the truck.

Approaching the pickup, the detectives could see McKinney in the drivers seat. They pondered how they would get the woman out then she stepped out on her own.

Apparently unaware of the detectives, McKinney dropped her pants and urinated as the officers looked on, Fredo recalled. The detectives then got out of their car and walked up and started questioning her.

Detective Fredo said the woman was evasive, avoiding questions about whether she frequented Valley Village.

The detective said she learnedfrom employees of the Pizza Hut just west of the crash scene that McKinney was a regular there. And security camera footage showed her at the restaurant the night before the incident.

She claimed she didnt know anything about (the crash), Fredo said. She did admit she was the only driver of her vehicle.

Fredo and the other traffic detective took McKinney into custody based on two warrants, one related to suspicion of battery: McKinney had gotten into an altercation while trying to use a shower at a local LA Fitness, Fredo said.

The three remaining dogs were taken to the Burbank shelter.

In August, weeks before the first mental-competency hearing, at the Los Angeles Police Departments Valley Operations Bureau, Fredo talked about the case with a reporter.

The detective said she believed McKinney was narcissistic: In previous encounters with police, McKinney would tell them about a potential book and a hoped-for feature movie about her life, conversations picked up by officers body-worn cameras.

McKinney had brought up the book idea to Fredo, too, during the arrest. McKinney was coherent, and chose her words carefully, the detective said.

What she was saying was making sense, Fredo said. If anything, I dont know that she had the ability to care about anybody but herself.

At the Burbank Animal Shelter on Wood-Levins desk sat two hand-written letters, about 20 pages each. McKinney sent them from an L.A. County jail.

In the letters, McKinney says shes being held against her will, and that she wants to reunite with her dogs, which she names.

Shes very intelligent, Wood-Levin said. She constantly plays the victim. She has not acknowledged whats she done in any of the letters.

She just says shes been falsely accused and is being held captive by the Sheriffs Department.

Fifteen or so years ago, Bolotsky was hit in that same Valley Village crosswalk.

Neither that first incident, nor his age, kept him down.

Family members, after the fatal hit-and-run, shared videos of Bolotsky dancing at his 90th birthday.

He was supposed to live to 100 or more, a son told KABC7.

Bolotsky had survived Nazi Germanys invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941. He fled his native Ukraine and settle in the United States.

He lived just around the corner from the crosswalk and would take his small dog, Leelah, for walks.

Bolotskys family took over care of Leelah, the LAPD detective said. But the dog clearly missed her owner.

On July 2, the Los Angeles County District Attorneys Office filed against McKinney one felony count each of assault with a deadly weapon, hit-and-run resulting in death, and vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence.

Two days later, records show, McKinneys public defender declared doubt about her mental competency to stand trial. Twenty days after that, a judge ordered a mental-competency hearing for McKinney.

And on Sept. 9, in front of Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert Harrison, McKinneys second public defender, William Edwards, said at first he believed some of the details she told him about her life could be delusions.

I wasnt sure if some of the things she was saying were true or not, Edwards told the judge.

When her lawyer looked for himself, he found how much of it really was.

I encourage you to Google her name, Edwards said. Shes a fascinating figure in our culture.

Judge Harrison declared McKinney mentally unfit to stand trial and ordered her housed in a mental-health facility.

McKinney was taken to the Metropolitan State Hospital, a sprawling, leafy 162-acre facility nestled in the heart of Norwalk.

In February, a judge in Van Nuys ruled, once again, she was not competent.

McKinneys next hearing is scheduled for August.

Read the original:

Woman accused of running over Holocaust survivor in San Fernando Valley has led a tabloid life - Long Beach Press Telegram

Brandon Bryant made international headlines when he came forward with information from inside the U.S. militarys drone program. Over the past several years, the former drone operator has become known for his outspoken activism on the issues of civilian deaths and the struggles of drone pilots with substance abuse and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Like other veterans of the program, the daily work of tracking and killing people as an operator took a psychological toll on Bryant, with consequences for his mental health that he has discussed publicly in the past. Since he left, hes also been struggling with the pressures of going public as a whistleblower anda head injury he suffered during a military training exercise.

One way that he has tried to pick up the pieces of his life is by getting involved in local politics in his hometown of Missoula, Montana. It hasnt been easy. Bryant has periodically clashed with members of the city council over issues like housing cost increases and contracts issued to land developers. Recently, he lashed out online, and is now facing up to ten years in prison for allegedly threatening elected officials.

Bryant was charged and taken into custody in February after a video of him allegedly making threats against the city council surfaced online. The video was posted by an online detractor (who Bryant has accused of cyberstalking) and was edited down from a longer version Bryant himself had posted. In the rambling video shot in a darkened room, Bryant says that members of the council deserve to be eliminated, though he never threatens any specific action.

Bryant is presently out on bail awaiting a hearing on Thursday. Three members of the city council have come forward to ask for the charges to be dropped, writing in an open letter that the video appeared to be edited to seem more threatening than it was. In no way do we perceive him to be a threat to our safety or that of the community, the council members wrote. The council members also cited his public role as a drone whistleblower. We are firm believers in the first amendment and we deeply feel the future consequences of jailing an active citizen over a non-violent offense will have devastating consequences.

A core question in the case is whether Bryants words in the YouTube video constitute whats known as a true threat under the First Amendment.

True threats encompass those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of anintent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals, said Anthony Johnstone,professorat Montanas Blewett School of Law. This is precisely the question at issue in Mr. Bryants case: Did he mean to communicate a threat to the city council? His words may be susceptible of more than one interpretation depending on the relevant context. The court will need to decide what that context is.

Through his lawyers, Bryant declined to comment for this story.

There is no obvious sign that the charges against Bryant are related to his high-profile work as a whistleblower on the drone program although other whistleblowers have been charged with leaking classified information, and advocates have long feared the government coming after those who speak out in other ways.

Bryants current situation does point to the lasting effects of the pressure of coming forward.

Cian Westmoreland, who is among the smallnumber of drone operators who havegone public abouttheirexperiences in the program, is close to Bryant and describes him as one of many veterans experiencing post-traumatic stress and moral injury.

Brandon and I have spoken extensively about what we carry with us. Brandon has a brain injury that interferes with the way he talks about things, Westmoreland told The Intercept, referring to the training incident. It isnt obvious to someone who doesnt know him. He says what he feels, and there is no filter. He says a lot of contradictory things, but he cant help it; he is working out a lot from the wars and even our current political situation here.

When Bryant first came forward in 2012, his account was explosive. Among other things, he said that drone operators routinely killed civilians and took drugs and alcohol while on the job. His story echoed that of other drone veterans, who spoke out about substance addiction and post-traumatic stress, in part due to feelings of torment over their involvement in the targeted killing program.

The drone program remains highly opaque, even as the military continues to carry out targeted killing campaigns around the world. Begun during the George W. Bush administration but massively expanded and normalized under Barack Obama, air wars waged by drone and conventional aircraft now continue in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, and Yemen.

In past conflicts, unaddressed PTSD and other psychological ailments suffered by veterans have sometimes resulted in alterations in their behavior. In the case of Bryant and others, Westmoreland said the trauma many veterans carry is compounded by the fact that the conflicts in which they took part have not ended; the painful consequences are still playing out in front of them every day.

Brandon is as sickened by his service as am. I dont like acknowledging that I participated in effectively destroying a nation and have done irreparable harm to anyone. The more you reflect, the worse it gets, Westmoreland said. He joined to serve his country, and the politicians elected to serve this country took his youthful good nature and turned us into invaders and we became their servants. He is as American as apple pie. Hes just considered the humanity in the people hes harmed. That alone is devastating almost 20 years into this with no real end in sight. Of course were angry about that.

Excerpt from:

Drone Whistleblower Faces Charges for Alleged Threat to Local Officials - The Intercept