vox--2020-01-17--The coming Supreme Court showdown over birth control

The Supreme Court announced on Friday that it will hear Trump v. Pennsylvania and Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania , two consolidated cases examining the Trump administration ’ s rules allowing virtually any employer to deny birth control coverage to its employees .
The cases reignite a legal conflict over the rights of employers who object to contraception on religious grounds .
This conflict raged throughout much of the Obama administration , then briefly simmered down after Justice Antonin Scalia ’ s death temporarily stripped conservatives of the Supreme Court majority they needed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The core question in the Pennsylvania cases , however , is not whether the Constitution gives such religious objectors a right to deny contraceptive coverage to their employees .
Rather , it ’ s whether the Trump administration acted properly when it wrote a sweeping exemption into regulations requiring employers to include birth control coverage in employee health plans .
The Trump administration ’ s rules permit many employers to ignore the requirement to provide birth control coverage to their employees if the employer expresses either a religious or a “ moral @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appeals court struck down these rules .
How we got here Until fairly recently , the general rule in “ religious liberty ” cases was that people of faith may sometimes seek exemptions from laws they object to on religious grounds , but they could not claim an exemption that would undercut the rights of a third party .
This was especially true in the business context .
As the Supreme Court held in United States v. Lee ( 1982 ) , “ when followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.
” That changed with Burwell v. Hobby Lobby ( 2014 ) , which held that the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act ( RFRA ) allows many employers that object to birth control to offer health plans that do not include contraceptive coverage .
Yet while Hobby Lobby was a doctrinal earthquake — erasing the old rule that religious objectors may not undercut @ @ @ @ @ @ @ share their beliefs — the opinion itself was fairly limited in scope .
Much of the Court ’ s reasoning rested on the fact that , rather than requiring all employers to provide birth control coverage directly to their employees , the Obama administration could have achieved the same goal more indirectly .
Under this indirect approach , an employer could “ self-certify that it opposes providing coverage for particular contraceptive services.
” After this happens , the government could then make a separate arrangement with the company that runs that employer ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s workers still receive contraceptive coverage .
Yet after the Obama administration took up the Supreme Court on its suggestion that it use this more indirect method of providing birth control coverage , some religious employers objected to this indirect process as well .
That kicked off a second round of litigation that ultimately fizzled in the Supreme Court ’ s decision in Zubik v. Burwell ( 2016 ) .
Short one justice , the Court punted Zubik back to the lower courts — most likely because the justices were divided 4-4 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration gave the religious right all it asked the courts for and more President Trump ’ s election , and the appointment of archconservative Justice Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court ’ s vacant seat , seemed to ensure that conservatives would prevail as soon as a case like Zubik reached the justices again .
Rather than wait for such a decision , however , the Trump administration decided to act on its own to give religious objectors a broad exemption from the requirement to provide birth control coverage .
In May 2017 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his administration to “ consider issuing amended regulations , consistent with applicable law , to address conscience-based objections to the preventive-care mandate.
” A few months later , the administration pushed out new rules granting a broad exemption to employers with moral or religious objections to birth control .
Among other things , these rules exempt both nonprofit employers and for-profit employers that are not publicly traded , if those employers object “ based on its sincerely held moral convictions ” to contraception .
Last July , however , a federal appeals court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rules .
The court concluded that the administration did not follow the appropriate procedures when it promulgated the new rules , and that federal law does not authorize the broad exemptions described by the Trump administration ’ s rule .
As a general rule , proposed regulations must undergo a process known as “ notice and comment , ” where the text of the proposed rule is released to the public so that anyone with an interest in that regulation may comment on it .
The Trump administration bypassed notice and comment , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this process retroactively after it was already in effect .
According to the lower court , that ’ s not allowed .
Among other things , the administration claimed it could bypass notice and comment because of “ the urgent need to alleviate harm to those with religious objections to the current regulations.
” But , according to Judge Patty Shwartz , who wrote the lower court opinion , that claim would allow too much .
“ All regulations are directed toward reducing harm in some manner , ” she explained in her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sufficient reason to bypass ordinary procedures , those procedures would largely cease to exist .
More significantly , Shwartz wrote that no federal statute authorizes the Trump administration ’ s rules .
Though many federal laws permit agencies to issue binding regulations , agencies can not act on their own — they can only regulate when Congress has given them the power to do so .
Judge Shwartz ’ s opinion doesn ’ t rule out the possibility that RFRA might let the administration exempt some religious objectors from some federal rules .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Religious Freedom Restoration Act .
It ’ s not the Moral Freedom Restoration Act .
As Shwartz points out in a footnote , the Trump administration didn ’ t even attempt to argue that “ RFRA authorizes or requires the Moral Exemption.
” So what happens now ?
Should the Supreme Court ultimately agree with Shwartz that the administration needed to conduct notice and comment before this rule takes effect , that would temporarily strike down the rule .
As a practical matter , however , the administration could eventually revive it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Meanwhile , it is probably inevitable that , one way or another , the Supreme Court will determine that religious objectors should enjoy broad exemptions from the requirement to provide birth control coverage .
There were almost certainly four votes for this outcome when the Court heard Zubik , and Gorsuch , who occupies the seat that was vacant in 2016 , is a staunch conservative in religion cases .
But the question of whether the administration can create a freestanding “ moral ” exemption to a federal regulation is novel .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s hard to find statutory support for such an exemption .
It ’ s possible this “ moral ” exemption will be a bridge too far even for the current Supreme Court .

The Supreme Court announced on Friday that it will hear Trump v. Pennsylvania and Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, two consolidated cases examining the Trump administration’s rules allowing virtually any employer to deny birth control coverage to its employees.
The cases reignite a legal conflict over the rights of employers who object to contraception on religious grounds. This conflict raged throughout much of the Obama administration, then briefly simmered down after Justice Antonin Scalia’s death temporarily stripped conservatives of the Supreme Court majority they needed to expand the rights of religious employers.
The core question in the Pennsylvania cases, however, is not whether the Constitution gives such religious objectors a right to deny contraceptive coverage to their employees. Rather, it’s whether the Trump administration acted properly when it wrote a sweeping exemption into regulations requiring employers to include birth control coverage in employee health plans.
The Trump administration’s rules permit many employers to ignore the requirement to provide birth control coverage to their employees if the employer expresses either a religious or a “moral” objection to contraception. A federal appeals court struck down these rules.
How we got here
Until fairly recently, the general rule in “religious liberty” cases was that people of faith may sometimes seek exemptions from laws they object to on religious grounds, but they could not claim an exemption that would undercut the rights of a third party. This was especially true in the business context. As the Supreme Court held in United States v. Lee (1982), “when followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.”
That changed with Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014), which held that the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) allows many employers that object to birth control to offer health plans that do not include contraceptive coverage.
Yet while Hobby Lobby was a doctrinal earthquake — erasing the old rule that religious objectors may not undercut the rights of people who do not share their beliefs — the opinion itself was fairly limited in scope. Much of the Court’s reasoning rested on the fact that, rather than requiring all employers to provide birth control coverage directly to their employees, the Obama administration could have achieved the same goal more indirectly.
Under this indirect approach, an employer could “self-certify that it opposes providing coverage for particular contraceptive services.” After this happens, the government could then make a separate arrangement with the company that runs that employer’s health plan to ensure the employer’s workers still receive contraceptive coverage.
Yet after the Obama administration took up the Supreme Court on its suggestion that it use this more indirect method of providing birth control coverage, some religious employers objected to this indirect process as well. That kicked off a second round of litigation that ultimately fizzled in the Supreme Court’s decision in Zubik v. Burwell (2016).
Short one justice, the Court punted Zubik back to the lower courts — most likely because the justices were divided 4-4 on who should prevail.
The Trump administration gave the religious right all it asked the courts for and more
President Trump’s election, and the appointment of archconservative Justice Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court’s vacant seat, seemed to ensure that conservatives would prevail as soon as a case like Zubik reached the justices again.
Rather than wait for such a decision, however, the Trump administration decided to act on its own to give religious objectors a broad exemption from the requirement to provide birth control coverage. In May 2017, Trump issued an executive order instructing his administration to “consider issuing amended regulations, consistent with applicable law, to address conscience-based objections to the preventive-care mandate.”
A few months later, the administration pushed out new rules granting a broad exemption to employers with moral or religious objections to birth control. Among other things, these rules exempt both nonprofit employers and for-profit employers that are not publicly traded, if those employers object “based on its sincerely held moral convictions” to contraception.
Last July, however, a federal appeals court struck down the Trump administration’s rules. The court concluded that the administration did not follow the appropriate procedures when it promulgated the new rules, and that federal law does not authorize the broad exemptions described by the Trump administration’s rule.
As a general rule, proposed regulations must undergo a process known as “notice and comment,” where the text of the proposed rule is released to the public so that anyone with an interest in that regulation may comment on it. The Trump administration bypassed notice and comment, although it did put the rule through this process retroactively after it was already in effect.
According to the lower court, that’s not allowed. Among other things, the administration claimed it could bypass notice and comment because of “the urgent need to alleviate harm to those with religious objections to the current regulations.” But, according to Judge Patty Shwartz, who wrote the lower court opinion, that claim would allow too much.
“All regulations are directed toward reducing harm in some manner,” she explained in her opinion. So if harm reduction were sufficient reason to bypass ordinary procedures, those procedures would largely cease to exist.
More significantly, Shwartz wrote that no federal statute authorizes the Trump administration’s rules. Though many federal laws permit agencies to issue binding regulations, agencies cannot act on their own — they can only regulate when Congress has given them the power to do so.
Judge Shwartz’s opinion doesn’t rule out the possibility that RFRA might let the administration exempt some religious objectors from some federal rules. But the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It’s not the Moral Freedom Restoration Act. As Shwartz points out in a footnote, the Trump administration didn’t even attempt to argue that “RFRA authorizes or requires the Moral Exemption.”
So what happens now?
Should the Supreme Court ultimately agree with Shwartz that the administration needed to conduct notice and comment before this rule takes effect, that would temporarily strike down the rule. As a practical matter, however, the administration could eventually revive it by jumping through the appropriate procedural hoops.
Meanwhile, it is probably inevitable that, one way or another, the Supreme Court will determine that religious objectors should enjoy broad exemptions from the requirement to provide birth control coverage. There were almost certainly four votes for this outcome when the Court heard Zubik, and Gorsuch, who occupies the seat that was vacant in 2016, is a staunch conservative in religion cases.
But the question of whether the administration can create a freestanding “moral” exemption to a federal regulation is novel. And, as Shwartz notes, it’s hard to find statutory support for such an exemption. It’s possible this “moral” exemption will be a bridge too far even for the current Supreme Court.


vox--2020-01-17--The Virginia gun rights rally raising fears of violence, explained

On Monday , thousands of gun rights supporters will descend on Richmond , Virginia , for the Virginia Citizens Defense League ’ s annual Lobby Day .
And so will a host of militia groups , conspiracy theorists , and far-right extremists , some of whom believe the rally in Richmond will represent the first shot of a new civil war , or as some users of the /pol/ forum term it , “ boogaloo.
” In response , the governor of Virginia , Ralph Northam , has declared a state of emergency for Monday due to intelligence he says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ militia groups storming our capital.
” One member of the Virginia General Assembly was so beset by death threats that he is currently staying in a safe house .
The organizer of the rally is concerned enough to emphasize on a popular gun site that Monday ’ s rally is supposed to be a “ peaceful event about gun rights and NOTHING ELSE.
” On Thursday , the FBI announced the arrest of three white nationalists in Maryland , members of a neo-Nazi training network called the Base — the English translation of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three , including one former Canadian army reservist who went missing last summer , were allegedly heading to Richmond .
According to the FBI , they had recently constructed a machine gun and obtained thousands of rounds of ammunition and body armor .
Three more members of the network were arrested on Thursday in Georgia .
The Lobby Day was intended to be an opportunity for Virginia gun owners to voice their displeasure with proposed gun control measures .
Instead , the event has raised fears of mass violence akin to — or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Lobby Day is an annual event for the VCDL , a pro-gun rights group , normally attracting a few hundred gun rights advocates to Richmond to lobby members of the state government .
( The National Rifle Association has a separate lobby day , which was held January 13 . )
This year , though , Virginia is on the cusp of actually passing gun control laws .
A host of gun control bills are winding their way through the Virginia legislature , which is newly under Democratic control .
They include @ @ @ @ @ @ @ firearms purchases and transfers , a bill limiting the number of handguns that can be purchased per month , a bill to permit localities to ban guns from specific events and venues , and “ red flag ” legislation that would permit law enforcement to take guns from people deemed risks to themselves or others .
Such a legislative push was almost inevitable as gun control groups , reacting in part to a mass shooting in Virginia Beach , dramatically outspent the NRA ( which is based in Virginia ) and other gun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That helped Democrats gain control of the state legislature for the first time in more than two decades , as I wrote in November : Right now , Virginia has comparatively loose gun laws — the state permits open carry and does not require a permit to purchase or possess a rifle , shotgun , or handgun , but it does regulate gun shows .
That means the four gun control bills mark a sea change for a state long noted as a gun rights haven .
And the commonwealth is closely divided @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s recent political shift toward the Democratic Party elides just how divided the state is politically between Republican-leaning and less populated rural areas and Democratic-leaning urban and suburban regions in the north of the state and around Virginia ’ s flagship universities , the University of Virginia and Virginia Tech .
The economic , cultural , and demographic differences between the two regional types are so extensive that , as the Virginia Mercury ’ s Bob Lewis put it last year , they make “ Virginia feel more like two states than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Charles C.W .
Cooke — who has written extensively on gun policy — told me in an interview : “ Democrats run the legislature and the executive branch , but they don ’ t run the legislature by much.
” And for some gun owners , the bills constitute what gun rights advocate and Lobby Day speaker Cam Edwards called the “ the most anti-gun legislative agenda in [ state ] history.
” “ There are bills in the legislature that would turn the vast majority of the state ’ s gun owners @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their ammunition magazines or legally purchased suppressors , ” Edwards said .
“ We ’ ve seen legislation that would turn Virginia gun owners into felons for selling a shotgun to their brother without a background check , though gifting that same shotgun to that same brother would be legal.
” In response , gun rights advocates in Virginia have taken action .
More than 80 counties in Virginia out of 95 have declared themselves “ Second Amendment sanctuaries ” where proposed gun control legislation would not be enforced despite passage at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laws would be unconstitutional .
( Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring has argued that such resolutions have no legal force . )
Advocates for Second Amendment sanctuaries in Virginia are arguing that the Second Amendment trumps state law , Cooke told me .
“ Government officials who swear to uphold the Constitution can not violate that Constitution , ” he said .
“ If one believes that these laws would violate the Constitution , then one has no choice but to declare one ’ s opposition to them.
” Hence , “ sanctuary.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ intended to be another opportunity for gun rights advocates to speak out against the proposed legislation .
But it has also attracted what Edwards called “ bad actors ” who were “ seeking attention and a spotlight.
” And some groups even claim to be seeking the beginnings of a race war .
Extremists hoping for violence have latched onto Lobby Day The Lobby Day has attracted interest from Virginians legitimately interested in gun rights — and not just right-wing groups .
According to an interview with Vice News , the Richmond-based Antifa @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as a spokesperson put it , “ I think it ’ s been pretty important for us to focus on the fact that gun control in America has a legacy of racist enforcement.
” But the legislation being discussed has been heavily distorted online by far-right individuals and websites , with some claiming the proposed bills will result in full-scale gun confiscation by the government .
“ There ’ s a great deal of fear and uncertainty surrounding some of these bills , which has been exacerbated in part by some on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , whether it ’ s to sell prepper products on their website or to generate clicks , ” Edwards said .
VCDL ’ s language has largely attempted to reflect caution , as the group says on its Lobby Day information page , “ The eyes of the nation and the world are on Virginia and Virginia Citizens Defense League right now and we must show them that gun owners are not the problem.
” One Virginia legislator , Lee Carter , has been targeted with death threats .
Carter , a democratic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 50th District , has supported a bill that would permit teachers to go on strike but continue the longstanding practice of forbidding law enforcement from doing so — which some online ( including a Virginia House of Delegates member ) have twisted into an argument that Carter wants to punish sheriffs in “ Second Amendment sanctuaries ” for not obeying state gun laws .
Ironically , as Carter told Gell , though he supports some gun legislation being proposed ( including universal background checks ) , he is a gun collector and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minorities should embrace gun ownership for their own safety .
( He hasn ’ t yet responded to a request for comment from Vox . )
The Lobby Day is also receiving considerable attention from some groups connected with the violent Unite the Right rally held in Charlottesville in 2017 ; several groups and entities banned from armed protest in Charlottesville because of United the Right are expected to attend the rally in Richmond .
Unlike Unite the Right , which was planned and organized by explicit white nationalists , Lobby Day is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not a white nationalist organization .
On the gun rights website Ammoland , VCDL president Philip Van Cleave attempted to tamp down tensions , discouraging attendees from carrying long guns at the rally for appearances ’ sake , and ( though arguing on the same site that Democrats may have invited extremist groups to turn the rally violent on purpose ) making it clear that Lobby Day is not supposed to be a protest : But the extremist rhetoric and explicit threats of violence online have raised real concerns from law enforcement , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emergency and ban guns on state Capitol grounds .
Those threats center on the idea that Richmond could be the site for the violent beginnings of a civil war , one sparked by restrictions on gun rights .
One far-right site falsely claimed in December that individuals attending Monday ’ s Lobby Day will have their guns confiscated at roadblocks across the state , that Virginia has “ been chosen as the deliberate flashpoint to ignite the civil war that ’ s being engineered by globalists , ” and that all of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of America and nationwide gun confiscation .
“ To all those who mocked our warnings about the coming civil war , you are about to find yourself in one , ” the author , Mike Adams , wrote .
“ Sure hope you know how to run an AR platform and build a water filter .
Things won ’ t go well for the unprepared , especially in the cities.
” This is common rhetoric for militia groups , said Sam Jackson , a PhD candidate at Syracuse University who studies the Oath @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attend the rally on Monday .
“ The anticipation of violation of gun rights is common among militia groups more broadly — pretty easily seen in all the ‘ molon labe ’ patches worn by militia folks , ” Jackson said .
( “ Molon labe ” is a classical Greek phrase meaning “ come and take them.
” ) “ Several novels that are important for the group depict war between Americans and the American government that begins with attempts at gun control.
” But beyond civil war , others expected to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ calling for a race war , in which white Americans will kill nonwhite Americans and Jewish people to establish a white ethnostate .
Using the term “ boogaloo ” — a sarcastic reference to the 1980s film Breakin ’ 2 : Electric Boogaloo that implies a “ Civil War 2 ” of sorts — users of online forums like /pol/ are using Richmond as the impetus for the beginnings of a race war .
They use phrases like “ fuck all optics , ” a reference to the last post shared on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Life shooter , which has become a motto of sorts for white nationalists .
They ’ ve been encouraged by conspiracy theorists like Infowars ’ Alex Jones , who said on January 8 that he and others from Infowars plan to attend the Richmond rally because “ we ’ ve had two revolutionary wars basically start in Virginia , and it looks like one may start again.
” He ’ s claimed that any violence that takes place at the rally will be a “ false flag , ” and in an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who helped organize 2017 ’ s Unite the Right rally — Jones invited Spencer to attend the rally .
The rally has also attracted attention from the ultra-violent neo-Nazi network the Base , an accelerationist white nationalist group that believes in using violence to overthrow the US government , foment a race war , and create a white ethnostate .
The Base intends to operate internationally , with cells in multiple countries to evade detection by authorities .
The group holds so-called “ hate camps ” where members receive paramilitary training and meet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ countries .
One of the men arrested by the FBI earlier this week was a Canadian Army Reserve active combat engineer who , according to an investigation by the Winnipeg Free Press , “ spoke on multiple occasions about committing acts of racially motivated violence and sabotage ” in interviews with a reporter embedded in the terrorist group .
According to the criminal complaint , the Canadian reservist and two fellow Base members had manufactured a working machine gun , practiced using the gun at a range in Maryland , and purchased 1,500 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gun rights Lobby Day in Richmond was intended to be , according to its organizers , “ a peaceful day to address our Legislature.
” But some expected to attend hope otherwise .
As one poster on the /pol/ online forum put it regarding Virginia ’ s proposed gun restrictions , “ This is solid proof that voting accelerationism will work .
Only such a civil conflict can bring about what we need .
”

On Monday, thousands of gun rights supporters will descend on Richmond, Virginia, for the Virginia Citizens Defense League’s annual Lobby Day. And so will a host of militia groups, conspiracy theorists, and far-right extremists, some of whom believe the rally in Richmond will represent the first shot of a new civil war, or as some users of the /pol/ forum term it, “boogaloo.”
In response, the governor of Virginia, Ralph Northam, has declared a state of emergency for Monday due to intelligence he says shows “a threat of an armed militia groups storming our capital.” One member of the Virginia General Assembly was so beset by death threats that he is currently staying in a safe house. The organizer of the rally is concerned enough to emphasize on a popular gun site that Monday’s rally is supposed to be a “peaceful event about gun rights and NOTHING ELSE.”
We have received credible intelligence from our law enforcement agencies of threats of violence surrounding the demonstration planned for Monday, January 20. This includes extremist rhetoric similar to what has been seen before major incidents, such as Charlottesville in 2017. — Ralph Northam (@GovernorVA) January 15, 2020
On Thursday, the FBI announced the arrest of three white nationalists in Maryland, members of a neo-Nazi training network called the Base — the English translation of the Arabic term “al-Qaeda.” The three, including one former Canadian army reservist who went missing last summer, were allegedly heading to Richmond. According to the FBI, they had recently constructed a machine gun and obtained thousands of rounds of ammunition and body armor. Three more members of the network were arrested on Thursday in Georgia.
The Lobby Day was intended to be an opportunity for Virginia gun owners to voice their displeasure with proposed gun control measures. Instead, the event has raised fears of mass violence akin to — or worse than — Unite the Right.
How gun control legislation led to a gun rights rally
The Lobby Day is an annual event for the VCDL, a pro-gun rights group, normally attracting a few hundred gun rights advocates to Richmond to lobby members of the state government. (The National Rifle Association has a separate lobby day, which was held January 13.)
This year, though, Virginia is on the cusp of actually passing gun control laws. A host of gun control bills are winding their way through the Virginia legislature, which is newly under Democratic control. They include a bill requiring background checks on all firearms purchases and transfers, a bill limiting the number of handguns that can be purchased per month, a bill to permit localities to ban guns from specific events and venues, and “red flag” legislation that would permit law enforcement to take guns from people deemed risks to themselves or others.
Such a legislative push was almost inevitable as gun control groups, reacting in part to a mass shooting in Virginia Beach, dramatically outspent the NRA (which is based in Virginia) and other gun rights groups during the 2019 election. That helped Democrats gain control of the state legislature for the first time in more than two decades, as I wrote in November:
Democrats didn’t win either the House of Delegates or Senate seat for Virginia Beach, but across the state, gun control was the top issue for voters and for Democratic candidates, according to one poll, with several candidates running explicitly on vows to “take on the NRA” to pass gun control legislation. According to Everytown, that focus (and money) resulted in at least three flipped seats that helped Democrats take control of the legislature. Gov. Ralph Northam said Wednesday that he now hopes to be able to pass a slate of gun control measures, and “because of that Virginia will be safer.”
Right now, Virginia has comparatively loose gun laws — the state permits open carry and does not require a permit to purchase or possess a rifle, shotgun, or handgun, but it does regulate gun shows. That means the four gun control bills mark a sea change for a state long noted as a gun rights haven.
And the commonwealth is closely divided on the issue of guns. Virginia’s recent political shift toward the Democratic Party elides just how divided the state is politically between Republican-leaning and less populated rural areas and Democratic-leaning urban and suburban regions in the north of the state and around Virginia’s flagship universities, the University of Virginia and Virginia Tech. The economic, cultural, and demographic differences between the two regional types are so extensive that, as the Virginia Mercury’s Bob Lewis put it last year, they make “Virginia feel more like two states than a commonwealth.”
As National Review writer Charles C.W. Cooke — who has written extensively on gun policy — told me in an interview: “Democrats run the legislature and the executive branch, but they don’t run the legislature by much.”
And for some gun owners, the bills constitute what gun rights advocate and Lobby Day speaker Cam Edwards called the “the most anti-gun legislative agenda in [state] history.”
“There are bills in the legislature that would turn the vast majority of the state’s gun owners into felons simply for maintaining possession of their ammunition magazines or legally purchased suppressors,” Edwards said. “We’ve seen legislation that would turn Virginia gun owners into felons for selling a shotgun to their brother without a background check, though gifting that same shotgun to that same brother would be legal.”
In response, gun rights advocates in Virginia have taken action. More than 80 counties in Virginia out of 95 have declared themselves “Second Amendment sanctuaries” where proposed gun control legislation would not be enforced despite passage at the state level under the argument that those laws would be unconstitutional. (Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring has argued that such resolutions have no legal force.)
Advocates for Second Amendment sanctuaries in Virginia are arguing that the Second Amendment trumps state law, Cooke told me. “Government officials who swear to uphold the Constitution cannot violate that Constitution,” he said. “If one believes that these laws would violate the Constitution, then one has no choice but to declare one’s opposition to them.” Hence, “sanctuary.”
Monday’s Lobby Day was intended to be another opportunity for gun rights advocates to speak out against the proposed legislation. But it has also attracted what Edwards called “bad actors” who were “seeking attention and a spotlight.” And some groups even claim to be seeking the beginnings of a race war.
Extremists hoping for violence have latched onto Lobby Day
The Lobby Day has attracted interest from Virginians legitimately interested in gun rights — and not just right-wing groups. According to an interview with Vice News, the Richmond-based Antifa Seven Hills is joining the protest because, as a spokesperson put it, “I think it’s been pretty important for us to focus on the fact that gun control in America has a legacy of racist enforcement.”
But the legislation being discussed has been heavily distorted online by far-right individuals and websites, with some claiming the proposed bills will result in full-scale gun confiscation by the government.
“There’s a great deal of fear and uncertainty surrounding some of these bills, which has been exacerbated in part by some on the pro-2A side for their own purposes, whether it’s to sell prepper products on their website or to generate clicks,” Edwards said. VCDL’s language has largely attempted to reflect caution, as the group says on its Lobby Day information page, “The eyes of the nation and the world are on Virginia and Virginia Citizens Defense League right now and we must show them that gun owners are not the problem.”
One Virginia legislator, Lee Carter, has been targeted with death threats. Carter, a democratic socialist who represents the state’s 50th District, has supported a bill that would permit teachers to go on strike but continue the longstanding practice of forbidding law enforcement from doing so — which some online (including a Virginia House of Delegates member) have twisted into an argument that Carter wants to punish sheriffs in “Second Amendment sanctuaries” for not obeying state gun laws.
As Gen’s Aaron Gell reported:
For Carter, the mischaracterization has become a matter of personal safety. “Now there’s a massive internet conspiracy theory that I’m working hand in hand with Gov. Northam, whom I can’t stand, the National Guard, and the UN, to go door-to-door taking people’s guns,” he explains. “It’s gotten to the point where people are openly discussing murder, and they want me and Governor Northam and Attorney General Herring to be the first ones dead.” The governor and AG have security details, he notes; state delegates do not.
Ironically, as Carter told Gell, though he supports some gun legislation being proposed (including universal background checks), he is a gun collector and a gun rights supporter who believes liberals and minorities should embrace gun ownership for their own safety. (He hasn’t yet responded to a request for comment from Vox.)
The Lobby Day is also receiving considerable attention from some groups connected with the violent Unite the Right rally held in Charlottesville in 2017; several groups and entities banned from armed protest in Charlottesville because of United the Right are expected to attend the rally in Richmond.
Unlike Unite the Right, which was planned and organized by explicit white nationalists, Lobby Day is a longstanding event, and VCDL is not a white nationalist organization. On the gun rights website Ammoland, VCDL president Philip Van Cleave attempted to tamp down tensions, discouraging attendees from carrying long guns at the rally for appearances’ sake, and (though arguing on the same site that Democrats may have invited extremist groups to turn the rally violent on purpose) making it clear that Lobby Day is not supposed to be a protest:
We are NOT there to have arguments with the other side. They lobby, we lobby, and never the two shall meet. Just ignore them. And we are not there to push any other agenda. Our total focus is on protecting our right to keep and bear arms. Period. This is not about flags, statues, history, etc. Just guns. If you somehow find yourself being harassed by the other side, don’t engage them. They could well be baiting you and recording what you do for propaganda purposes. If necessary, go find a police officer and let them take care of the person causing the disturbance. Otherwise, just ignore them and go about your business.
But the extremist rhetoric and explicit threats of violence online have raised real concerns from law enforcement, leading Virginia to declare a state of emergency and ban guns on state Capitol grounds. Those threats center on the idea that Richmond could be the site for the violent beginnings of a civil war, one sparked by restrictions on gun rights.
One far-right site falsely claimed in December that individuals attending Monday’s Lobby Day will have their guns confiscated at roadblocks across the state, that Virginia has “been chosen as the deliberate flashpoint to ignite the civil war that’s being engineered by globalists,” and that all of this will end with the United Nations occupation of America and nationwide gun confiscation.
“To all those who mocked our warnings about the coming civil war, you are about to find yourself in one,” the author, Mike Adams, wrote. “Sure hope you know how to run an AR platform and build a water filter. Things won’t go well for the unprepared, especially in the cities.”
This is common rhetoric for militia groups, said Sam Jackson, an assistant professor in the College of Emergency Preparedness, Homeland Security and Cybersecurity at the University at Albany who studies the Oath Keepers, a militia group expected to attend the rally on Monday.
“The anticipation of violation of gun rights is common among militia groups more broadly — pretty easily seen in all the ‘molon labe’ patches worn by militia folks,” Jackson said. (“Molon labe” is a classical Greek phrase meaning “come and take them.”) “Several novels that are important for the group depict war between Americans and the American government that begins with attempts at gun control.”
But beyond civil war, others expected to attend Monday’s rally are explicitly calling for a race war, in which white Americans will kill nonwhite Americans and Jewish people to establish a white ethnostate. Using the term “boogaloo” — a sarcastic reference to the 1980s film Breakin’ 2: Electric Boogaloo that implies a “Civil War 2” of sorts — users of online forums like /pol/ are using Richmond as the impetus for the beginnings of a race war. They use phrases like “fuck all optics,” a reference to the last post shared on the social networking site Gab by the Tree of Life shooter, which has become a motto of sorts for white nationalists.
They’ve been encouraged by conspiracy theorists like Infowars’ Alex Jones, who said on January 8 that he and others from Infowars plan to attend the Richmond rally because “we’ve had two revolutionary wars basically start in Virginia, and it looks like one may start again.” He’s claimed that any violence that takes place at the rally will be a “false flag,” and in an interview with white nationalist Richard Spencer — who helped organize 2017’s Unite the Right rally — Jones invited Spencer to attend the rally.
The rally has also attracted attention from the ultra-violent neo-Nazi network the Base, an accelerationist white nationalist group that believes in using violence to overthrow the US government, foment a race war, and create a white ethnostate. The Base intends to operate internationally, with cells in multiple countries to evade detection by authorities. The group holds so-called “hate camps” where members receive paramilitary training and meet other members, including those from other countries.
One of the men arrested by the FBI earlier this week was a Canadian Army Reserve active combat engineer who, according to an investigation by the Winnipeg Free Press, “spoke on multiple occasions about committing acts of racially motivated violence and sabotage” in interviews with a reporter embedded in the terrorist group.
According to the criminal complaint, the Canadian reservist and two fellow Base members had manufactured a working machine gun, practiced using the gun at a range in Maryland, and purchased 1,500 rounds of ammunition.
Monday’s gun rights Lobby Day in Richmond was intended to be, according to its organizers, “a peaceful day to address our Legislature.” But some expected to attend hope otherwise. As one poster on the /pol/ online forum put it regarding Virginia’s proposed gun restrictions, “This is solid proof that voting accelerationism will work. Only such a civil conflict can bring about what we need.”


vox--2020-01-17--Things can get “really bad, really quickly” when a 24-year-old runs a company

A few years after Anna Wiener graduated from college in 2009 , she decided to get out of a dead-end job in the publishing industry to work in tech — because , she says , she wanted to feel like she was “ going somewhere.
” Instead , she found herself sucked into a culture that left her increasingly disconnected from her sense of self , and working for young startup managers who seemed not to have much more emotional intelligence than an AI-programmed chatbot .
“ You see people who are 24 or 25 running a company .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experience .
You ’ ve never had any professional experience .
Things can get really bad , really quickly , ” said Wiener in an interview for Recode Media about her new memoir , Uncanny Valley .
“ I think that from there , I started to question the way the industry was designed.
” Wiener ’ s book is an outgrowth of a 2016 essay by the same name in the literary magazine n+1 , where Wiener says she presented a “ lightly fictionalized ” tale of her time in tech .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ her time working for startups in New York and San Francisco , Wiener doesn ’ t identify by name which companies or people she worked for .
But we know she first worked for an e-reading subscription app in New York before moving to San Francisco to work in customer support — first for a data analytics startup and then for a company that hosted open source software projects ( widely thought to be Github ) .
Using vivid and nuanced prose , Wiener recounts cringeworthy meetings with managers who question her capabilities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ company ’ s reputation than the growing homeless encampments on San Francisco ’ s streets , and casual workplace sexism — like a male colleague keeping a list of women in the office ranked by their looks — that she ’ s afraid to confront for fear of being designated a feminist killjoy .
But Wiener is reluctant to dismiss the appeal of tech culture altogether .
She ’ s honest about her attraction to an industry that promised a sense of opportunity she lacked in her previous gig , as an assistant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wiener says she still has “ a lot of sympathy ” for people like one of her former bosses , who she thinks was in over his head .
“ In my mind , he was a kid , which I realize is probably being a little forgiving of someone who has been given an incredible amount of money and power and free rein , ” said Wiener .
“ I tend to try to shift my blame toward the larger picture , toward the structure that ’ s in place that empowers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mythology around a certain type of hardheaded college dropout with a technical background.
” Read an excerpt of the interview below ( edited for clarity ) , and listen to the entire conversation here : Not to give away the book , but can you tell us a little bit more about the critical perspective that you also came to have on some aspects of tech culture ?
I don ’ t think it ’ s a spoiler that I grew disillusioned with this industry or my work in it .
I think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I was working at a data analytics company when the Snowden revelations came out , and that was something that I didn ’ t quite process in the moment but gradually started to understand that this was part of a much bigger ecosystem and economy around data collection and the different ways that could be abused ... On an interpersonal level , I started to feel like it didn ’ t make sense to me that we should all be down for the cause when actually the incentives weren ’ t really @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an emotional incentive in this particular company to let the startup consume your life .
I think also you see people who are 24 or 25 running a company .
They ’ ve never really had any professional experience .
You ’ ve never had any professional experience .
Things can get really bad , really quickly .
I think that from there , I started to question the way the industry was designed .
Can you describe a little bit more about what that was like ?
I know there were a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that you were in .
It ’ s a very strange culture in which to learn how to be a professional , which for a lot of people , this was where they were learning to become a professional .
I think on the one hand , it can be really exciting .
You ’ re sitting at a table or standing at a table next to the CEO of a company [ Ed .
note : As in the book , Wiener did not disclose the identity of this person ] and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ People who are powerful , who you assume know what they ’ re doing , have given this person $ 12 million to make his idea come to life .
That ’ s thrilling , and that level of casual interaction can be very exciting as well , where you ’ re hanging out with your CEO , you ’ re drinking beer with your CEO , you ’ re going to Tahoe with the whole [ company ] ...
I just think that the youthfulness is a really big part of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come a certain level of inexperience .
I think that the irreverence of the industry , which is really appealing to a lot of young people , is also its downfall .
So at a certain point , it started to feel like the things that had once made working at this one company in particular so exciting and so enchanting in a way were actually the same things that would contribute to what would make it a miserable place to be .
I think that working for people who are figuring it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ big part of that .
At the same time , I have a lot of sympathy for someone like that .
It was very hard for me to be on the receiving end of certain — what I would call highly unprofessional and inappropriate managerial strategies — but I also feel for this kid .
He , in my mind , he was a kid , which I realize is probably being a little forgiving of someone who has been given an incredible amount of money and power and free rein .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ toward the larger picture , toward the structure that ’ s in place that empowers certain types of people or has this mythology around a certain type of hardheaded college dropout with a technical background .
But I don ’ t come at this from a place of contempt at all , especially not toward someone who I think really got wrapped up in a system that he was not entirely prepared to be a part of .
I think looking at the systems view is a little bit a way of forgiveness @ @ @ @

A few years after Anna Wiener graduated from college in 2009, she decided to get out of a dead-end job in the publishing industry to work in tech — because, she says, she wanted to feel like she was “going somewhere.”
Instead, she found herself sucked into a culture that left her increasingly disconnected from her sense of self, and working for young startup managers who seemed not to have much more emotional intelligence than an AI-programmed chatbot.
“You see people who are 24 or 25 running a company. They’ve never really had any professional experience. You’ve never had any professional experience. Things can get really bad, really quickly,” said Wiener in an interview for Recode Media about her new memoir, Uncanny Valley. “I think that from there, I started to question the way the industry was designed.”
Wiener’s book is an outgrowth of a 2016 essay by the same name in the literary magazine n+1, where Wiener says she presented a “lightly fictionalized” tale of her time in tech. In her new book, which describes her time working for startups in New York and San Francisco, Wiener doesn’t identify by name which companies or people she worked for. But we know she first worked for an e-reading subscription app in New York before moving to San Francisco to work in customer support — first for a data analytics startup and then for a company that hosted open source software projects (widely thought to be Github).
Using vivid and nuanced prose, Wiener recounts cringeworthy meetings with managers who question her capabilities, colleagues who worry more about their company’s reputation than the growing homeless encampments on San Francisco’s streets, and casual workplace sexism — like a male colleague keeping a list of women in the office ranked by their looks — that she’s afraid to confront for fear of being designated a feminist killjoy.
But Wiener is reluctant to dismiss the appeal of tech culture altogether. She’s honest about her attraction to an industry that promised a sense of opportunity she lacked in her previous gig, as an assistant at a New York literary agency.
Wiener says she still has “a lot of sympathy” for people like one of her former bosses, who she thinks was in over his head.
“In my mind, he was a kid, which I realize is probably being a little forgiving of someone who has been given an incredible amount of money and power and free rein,” said Wiener. “I tend to try to shift my blame toward the larger picture, toward the structure that’s in place that empowers certain types of people or has this mythology around a certain type of hardheaded college dropout with a technical background.”
Read an excerpt of the interview below (edited for clarity), and listen to the entire conversation here:
Shirin Ghaffary
Not to give away the book, but can you tell us a little bit more about the critical perspective that you also came to have on some aspects of tech culture?
Anna Wiener
I don’t think it’s a spoiler that I grew disillusioned with this industry or my work in it. I think for me it was a slow burn. I was working at a data analytics company when the Snowden revelations came out, and that was something that I didn’t quite process in the moment but gradually started to understand that this was part of a much bigger ecosystem and economy around data collection and the different ways that could be abused ...
On an interpersonal level, I started to feel like it didn’t make sense to me that we should all be down for the cause when actually the incentives weren’t really there, that it was more of an emotional incentive in this particular company to let the startup consume your life.
I think also you see people who are 24 or 25 running a company. They’ve never really had any professional experience. You’ve never had any professional experience. Things can get really bad, really quickly. I think that from there, I started to question the way the industry was designed.
Shirin Ghaffary
Can you describe a little bit more about what that was like? I know there were a couple of very uncomfortable meetings or situations that you were in.
Anna Wiener
It’s a very strange culture in which to learn how to be a professional, which for a lot of people, this was where they were learning to become a professional. I think on the one hand, it can be really exciting. You’re sitting at a table or standing at a table next to the CEO of a company [Ed. note: As in the book, Wiener did not disclose the identity of this person] and people who you assume are powerful. People who are powerful, who you assume know what they’re doing, have given this person $12 million to make his idea come to life. That’s thrilling, and that level of casual interaction can be very exciting as well, where you’re hanging out with your CEO, you’re drinking beer with your CEO, you’re going to Tahoe with the whole [company] ...
I just think that the youthfulness is a really big part of this culture, but with youthfulness tends to come a certain level of inexperience. I think that the irreverence of the industry, which is really appealing to a lot of young people, is also its downfall.
So at a certain point, it started to feel like the things that had once made working at this one company in particular so exciting and so enchanting in a way were actually the same things that would contribute to what would make it a miserable place to be. I think that working for people who are figuring it out as they go along is a big part of that.
At the same time, I have a lot of sympathy for someone like that. It was very hard for me to be on the receiving end of certain — what I would call highly unprofessional and inappropriate managerial strategies — but I also feel for this kid. He, in my mind, he was a kid, which I realize is probably being a little forgiving of someone who has been given an incredible amount of money and power and free rein.
I tend to try to shift my blame toward the larger picture, toward the structure that’s in place that empowers certain types of people or has this mythology around a certain type of hardheaded college dropout with a technical background. But I don’t come at this from a place of contempt at all, especially not toward someone who I think really got wrapped up in a system that he was not entirely prepared to be a part of. I think looking at the systems view is a little bit a way of forgiveness in a way.


vox--2020-01-17--When Pinterest users started searching for vaccines, CEO Ben Silbermann pulled all medical informati

When Pinterest users started searching for vaccines, CEO Ben Silbermann pulled all medical information from the platform

Pinterest is much smaller than its tech giant competitors Instagram , Amazon , and Google .
But the visual discovery platform has established a quietly radical approach to search : deliberately engineering results to avoid harm , and holding itself accountable for unintended consequences .
Founded in 2010 , Pinterest grew up against the backdrop of its rapidly scaled competitors struggling to adequately police the spread of disinformation on their platforms .
“ I think back then it was just sort of a foregone conclusion that if you build technology platforms , good things will automatically happen , ” CEO @ @ @ @ @ @ @ National Retail Federation in a live episode of Recode Decode .
“ The lesson that everyone ’ s learned over the last few years is that if you want positive things to come out of internet technology , they have to be deliberately engineered that way.
” Silbermann ’ s approach to search is a quietly radical departure from Pinterest ’ s fellow social media platforms .
Without calling them out directly , Silbermann says , “ If you don ’ t take some responsibility for what people see , you ’ re @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consequences of that.
” The platform faced its first test when it noticed people had begun searching Pinterest for medical information , specifically about vaccines .
The reemergence of previously eradicated diseases like measles has been linked , at least in part , to disinformation on social platforms shared by people who believe unfounded claims that vaccines can be harmful .
“ And we made the decision then , that as a starting point , we would just not serve up content because we couldn ’ t ensure that we were giving people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Over the past six months , Pinterest has permitted verified sources like the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to post results exclusively .
They took a similar approach to users searching for terms associated with clinical depression and anxiety .
Under the guidance of clinical psychologists , Pinterest designed a product called “ Compassionate Search.
” The goal is to serve results that will aid rather than harm users , all based on expert advice from medical professionals .
Silbermann said this means results should normalize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Silbermann is driven by his early vision for what the internet could be .
“ Like a lot of people , I thought the internet would be this positive place that could connect people in a positive way , that could lead people to feel really good .
And it didn ’ t turn out that way , ” he says .
“ A lot of the internet wasn ’ t built with the needs of especially women in mind.
” Pinterest is still dwarfed by the likes of Instagram , Google @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the intersection of search and commerce .
But at 320 million US users , Pinterest is growing quickly .
We ’ ll see how Silbermann ’ s accountability for unintended consequences evolves with scale now that it ’ s a public company answerable to the stock market — and whether any of its competitors follow suit .

Pinterest is much smaller than its tech giant competitors Instagram, Amazon, and Google. But the visual discovery platform has established a quietly radical approach to search: deliberately engineering results to avoid harm, and holding itself accountable for unintended consequences.
Founded in 2010, Pinterest grew up against the backdrop of its rapidly scaled competitors struggling to adequately police the spread of disinformation on their platforms.
“I think back then it was just sort of a foregone conclusion that if you build technology platforms, good things will automatically happen,” CEO Ben Silbermann told Kara Swisher at the National Retail Federation in a live episode of Recode Decode. “The lesson that everyone’s learned over the last few years is that if you want positive things to come out of internet technology, they have to be deliberately engineered that way.”
Silbermann’s approach to search is a quietly radical departure from Pinterest’s fellow social media platforms. Without calling them out directly, Silbermann says, “If you don’t take some responsibility for what people see, you’re at some level responsible for the downstream consequences of that.”
The platform faced its first test when it noticed people had begun searching Pinterest for medical information, specifically about vaccines. The reemergence of previously eradicated diseases like measles has been linked, at least in part, to disinformation on social platforms shared by people who believe unfounded claims that vaccines can be harmful.
“And we made the decision then, that as a starting point, we would just not serve up content because we couldn’t ensure that we were giving people great information,” Silbermann said.
Over the past six months, Pinterest has permitted verified sources like the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to post results exclusively.
They took a similar approach to users searching for terms associated with clinical depression and anxiety. Under the guidance of clinical psychologists, Pinterest designed a product called “Compassionate Search.” The goal is to serve results that will aid rather than harm users, all based on expert advice from medical professionals. Silbermann said this means results should normalize emotions but not the behavior of self-harm.
Silbermann is driven by his early vision for what the internet could be. “Like a lot of people, I thought the internet would be this positive place that could connect people in a positive way, that could lead people to feel really good. And it didn’t turn out that way,” he says. “A lot of the internet wasn’t built with the needs of especially women in mind.”
Pinterest is still dwarfed by the likes of Instagram, Google, and Amazon, whose businesses focus on the intersection of search and commerce. But at 320 million US users, Pinterest is growing quickly. We’ll see how Silbermann’s accountability for unintended consequences evolves with scale now that it’s a public company answerable to the stock market — and whether any of its competitors follow suit.


vox--2020-01-17--Spotify may buy The Ringer. Here’s why that makes sense.

Last year , Spotify made a splash when it bought a series of podcasting companies .
Now it may be at it again : The company is in conversations to buy The Ringer , the podcast-centric startup founded by sports media entrepreneur Bill Simmons .
Spotify , which spent about $ 400 million in 2019 by acquiring three podcasting companies — Gimlet Media , Anchor FM , and Parcast — has had talks with Simmons that date back at least as far as October 2019 , according to people familiar with discussions .
It ’ s not clear how advanced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also be interested in buying other podcast companies .
If a Spotify-Ringer deal happens , it would signal that Spotify thinks the podcast deals it did last year were money well-spent , and that podcasting will be an important part of the music company ’ s future .
What it wouldn ’ t indicate is what would happen to The Ringers ’ popular sports and culture podcasts , which are currently available for free on every platform , including Apple ’ s dominant Podcast app .
It ’ s a decent bet , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be interested in getting Simmons ’ group to create more Spotify-exclusive podcasts , like the “ Hottest Take ” series it started making for Spotify last September .
The Wall Street Journal first reported on the talks .
Reps for Spotify and The Ringer declined to comment ; Simmons hasn ’ t responded to a request for comment .
( Vox Media , which owns Recode , has a commercial relationship with The Ringer . )
There ’ s some basic logic to a would-be deal : Last year Spotify announced that podcasting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ business , and it has been making moves to both push its own , exclusive podcasts , as well as to promote podcasts in general .
And while The Ringer has a web publishing operation , and has made forays into videos and TV shows , the bulk of its revenue comes from podcasting .
Last year , the Journal reported that the company was generating more than $ 15 million a year from podcasts .
Simmons has been immersed in podcasting since 2007 , when he was a rising star at Disney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ let him go in 2015 , Simmons started his own site .
HBO initially backed the site , and it also hired him to create a short-lived TV show he hosted , along with other programming .
Simmons has never disclosed if he has other investors .
Simmons has talked about selling his company before .
Last year he discussed a sale with AT & T ’ s WarnerMedia , proposing a price around $ 100 million , according to a source familiar with discussions .
WarnerMedia was already working with Simmons via @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Turner , the TV network that owns Bleacher Report , a digital sports publisher it acquired in 2012 .
Talks between WarnerMedia and Simmons stopped before news that Spotify was buying Gimlet broke .
Since Spotify embarked on its podcast buying spree , lots of podcast-related businesses have imagined that their value has increased , so it ’ s quite possible that Simmons feel the same .
Spotify has said it wants to invest in podcasts for several reasons .
It thinks Spotify users who listen to podcasts are more likely to pay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and less likely to stop using the service .
Spotify also wants to use podcasting to build up its advertising business ; earlier this month , it announced plans to provide ad targeting for podcast advertisers using Spotify listeners ’ demographics and behavior .
That ’ s the data marketers already use for standard Web ads — using the same tech that tells advertisers whether you looked at slippers on Zappos , or which website you visited before you got to Vox.com — but hasn ’ t been widely available for podcast advertisers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ad business believes , a lot more ad dollars would come into the industry .
Podcasting is growing fast , but it is still a niche business compared to the rest of the ad world .
Last year , Edison Research estimated that 32 percent of the people in the US over age 12 — that ’ s 90 million people — listened to a podcast each month .
That ’ s up from 11 percent a decade ago .
But advertisers usually take a while to follow users .
Podcasting advertising is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million this year and $ 1 billion in 2021 .
But the rest of digital advertising brings in well more than $ 107 billion in the US .
And Spotify believes it can get better economics from podcasting than it does from the music labels who are responsible for the overwhelming majority of its business .
Eventually - and theoretically — if podcasting becomes big enough — Spotify ’ s overall margins could improve , and that could convince Wall Street that Spotify is more valuable .
Up until now , Apple has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ popularity of its iOS operating system , which features a built-in podcasting app .
But while Apple ’ s media chief Eddy Cue , who likes Simmons , would likely be unhappy to see Spotify lock up his company and podcasts in an exclusive deal — if that ’ s what it ended up doing — I would be surprised if he made a counter-offer .
That ’ s because Apple executives say they don ’ t view podcasting as a business and aren ’ t likely to change their perspective soon : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ad-based business that ’ s free to users .
And Apple does very little in the ad business , and has staked out a pro-privacy , anti-ad targeting position .
Unless Apple ’ s theology changes — which is very unlikely — or consumers show a willingness to pay for podcasts , instead of listening to free , ad-supported ones , Apple is unlikely to think podcasting will be a business it wants to participate in .
That said , Apple has been expanding its modest podcasting team ( Apple recently hired a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ promotion ) , and wants to promote podcast consumption on its platform .
Apple has also talked to podcast companies about making a handful of exclusive podcasts , but so far those seem limited to companion podcasts for other Apple projects , like its Apple TV shows .
Worth noting : The Spotify-Ringer talks are happening at the same time that sports media startup Barstool Sports may be sold to Penn National , a regional gambling company .
Probably coincidental : Both The Ringer and Barstool are led by men who started blogging @ @ @ @

Last year, Spotify made a splash when it bought a series of podcasting companies. Now it may be at it again: The company is in conversations to buy The Ringer, the podcast-centric startup founded by sports media entrepreneur Bill Simmons.
Spotify, which spent about $400 million in 2019 acquiring three podcasting companies — Gimlet Media, Anchor FM, and Parcast — has had talks with Simmons dating back to at least October 2019, according to people familiar with the discussions. It’s not clear how advanced the talks are now; Spotify may also be interested in buying other podcast companies.
If a Spotify-Ringer deal happens, it would signal that Spotify thinks the podcast deals it did last year were money well spent and that podcasting will be an important part of the music company’s future. What it wouldn’t indicate is what would happen to The Ringer’s popular sports and culture podcasts, which are currently available for free on every platform, including Apple’s dominant Podcast app.
It’s a decent bet, though, that Spotify would at least be interested in getting Simmons’s group to create more Spotify-exclusive podcasts, like the “Hottest Take” series it started making for Spotify last September.
The Wall Street Journal first reported on the talks. Reps for Spotify and The Ringer declined to comment; Simmons hasn’t responded to a request for comment. (Vox Media, which owns Recode, has a commercial relationship with The Ringer.)
There’s some basic logic to a would-be deal: Last year, Spotify announced that podcasting would become an important part of its business, and it has been making moves to both push its own exclusive podcasts, as well as promote podcasts in general.
And while The Ringer has a web publishing operation and has made forays into videos and TV shows, the bulk of its revenue comes from podcasting. Last year, the Journal reported that the company was generating more than $15 million a year from podcasts.
Simmons has been immersed in podcasting since 2007, when he was a rising star at Disney’s ESPN unit. After ESPN let him go in 2015, Simmons started his own site. HBO initially backed the site, and also hired him to create a short-lived TV show he hosted, along with other programming. Simmons has never disclosed if he has other investors.
Simmons has talked about selling his company before. Last year he discussed a sale with AT&T’s WarnerMedia, proposing a price around $100 million, according to a source familiar with discussions. WarnerMedia was already working with Simmons via its HBO unit; it also owns Turner, the TV network that owns Bleacher Report, a digital sports publisher it acquired in 2012.
Talks between WarnerMedia and Simmons stopped before news that Spotify was buying Gimlet broke. Since Spotify embarked on its podcast buying spree, lots of podcast-related businesses have imagined that their value has increased, so it’s quite possible that Simmons feels the same.
Spotify has said it wants to invest in podcasts for several reasons. It thinks Spotify users who listen to podcasts are more likely to pay for a premium version of Spotify and less likely to stop using the service.
Spotify also wants to use podcasting to build up its advertising business; earlier this month, it announced plans to provide ad targeting for podcast advertisers using Spotify listeners’ demographics and behavior. That’s the data marketers already use for standard web ads — using the same tech that tells advertisers whether you looked at slippers on Zappos, or which website you visited before you got to Vox.com — but hasn’t been widely available for podcast advertisers. If it delivers, the conventional ad business believes, a lot more ad dollars would come into the industry.
Podcasting is growing fast, but it is still a niche business compared to the rest of the ad world. Last year, Edison Research estimated that 32 percent of the people in the US over age 12 — that’s 90 million people — listened to a podcast each month. That’s up from 11 percent a decade ago.
But advertisers usually take a while to follow users. Podcasting advertising is supposed to generate more than $860 million this year and $1 billion in 2021. But the rest of digital advertising brings in more than $107 billion in the US.
And Spotify believes it can get better economics from podcasting than it does from the music labels who are responsible for the overwhelming majority of its business. Eventually — and theoretically — if podcasting becomes big enough, Spotify’s overall margins could improve, and that could convince Wall Street that Spotify is more valuable.
Until now, Apple has dominated podcasting, primarily because of the popularity of its iOS operating system, which features a built-in podcasting app. But while Apple’s media chief Eddy Cue, who likes Simmons, would likely be unhappy to see Spotify lock up his company and podcasts in an exclusive deal — if that’s what it ended up doing — I would be surprised if he made a counteroffer.
That’s because Apple executives say they don’t view podcasting as a business and aren’t likely to change their perspective soon: Right now, podcasting is overwhelmingly an ad-based business that’s free to users. And Apple does very little in the ad business; it has staked out a pro-privacy, anti-ad targeting position.
Unless Apple’s theology changes — which is very unlikely — or consumers show a willingness to pay for podcasts instead of listening to free ad-supported ones, Apple is unlikely to think that podcasting will be a business it wants to participate in.
That said, the company has been expanding its modest podcasting team (Apple recently hired a Vox Media employee who specialized in podcast promotion), and wants to promote podcast consumption on its platform. Apple has also talked to podcast companies about making a handful of exclusive podcasts, but so far those seem limited to companion podcasts for other Apple projects, like its Apple TV shows.
Worth noting: The Spotify-Ringer talks are happening at the same time that sports media startup Barstool Sports may be sold to Penn National, a regional gambling company. Probably coincidental: Both The Ringer and Barstool are led by men who started blogging about Boston sports.


vox--2020-01-18--Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are giving up their “royal highness” titles

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle , the Duke and Duchess of Sussex , announced on January 18 that they will surrender their “ royal highness ” titles and repay the funds spent on renovating their home near Windsor Castle .
The announcement comes 10 days after the couple decided to step back from their roles as senior members of the royal family and work to become financially independent .
“ The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are grateful to Her Majesty and the Royal Family for their ongoing support as they embark on the next chapter of their lives , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Palace .
The couple ’ s decision comes after their six-week break of “ family time ” in November , when they took time off from royal duties .
A royal source told CNN in October that they were considering splitting time between the UK and the US .
According to BBC ’ s royal correspondent , Jonny Dymond , no member of the Royal Family was consulted before the couple issued their first statement .
On January 13 , the royal family convened for a family summit to discuss the Sussexes ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expressed her support for Harry and Meghan .
On January 18 , following the announcement of the loss of their “ royal highness ” titles , the queen said in a statement , “ I am pleased that together we have found a constructive and supportive way forward for my grandson and his family .
Harry , Meghan and Archie will always be much loved members of my family.
” Harry and Meghan confirmed they will be spending time in both countries , adding that the geographic balance will help them raise their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the royal tradition into which he was born , while also providing [ their ] family with the space to focus on the next chapter , including the launch of our new charitable entity.
” The announcement shouldn ’ t be surprising , given the intense scrutiny Meghan ’ s personal and public life has faced since she started dating Harry in 2016 .
Meghan has constantly been a subject of the British tabloids , and in October , the couple sued the owners of the Sun and Daily Mirror — two of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ phone hacking .
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex aren ’ t the first high-profile royals to retreat from their roles .
In November , Prince Andrew , Queen Elizabeth ’ s second son , announced he would “ step back from public duties for the foreseeable future , ” after a disastrous BBC interview that addressed his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein , who was accused of sexually abusing dozens of underage girls before his death in August .
Andrew ’ s leave , however , seemed to be an attempt at mitigating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Meghan ’ s loss of titles was expected , according to the Washington Post .
Princess Diana and Sarah , the Duchess of York and former wife of Prince Andrew , lost their HRH titles when they divorced their royal husbands .
It seems that Buckingham Palace has accepted the couple ’ s independent decision , with the queen issuing a formal statement of support : “ I recognize the challenges they have experienced as a result of intense scrutiny over the last two years and support their wish for a more independent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ newsletter .
Twice a week , we ’ ll send you the best Goods stories exploring what we buy , why we buy it , and why it matters .

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, announced on January 18 that they will surrender their “royal highness” titles and repay the funds spent on renovating their home near Windsor Castle.
The announcement comes 10 days after the couple announced they will step back from their roles as senior members of the royal family and work to become financially independent.
“The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are grateful to Her Majesty and the Royal Family for their ongoing support as they embark on the next chapter of their lives,” reads the press statement from Buckingham Palace.
The couple’s decision comes after their six-week break of “family time” in November, when they took time off from royal duties. A royal source told CNN in October that they were considering splitting time between the UK and the US. According to BBC’s royal correspondent, Jonny Dymond, no member of the royal family was consulted before the couple issued their first statement.
On January 13, the royal family convened for a family summit to discuss the Sussexes’ plans. The queen ultimately expressed her support for Harry and Meghan. On January 18, following the announcement that they would not retain their “royal highness” titles, the queen said in a statement, “I am pleased that together we have found a constructive and supportive way forward for my grandson and his family. Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved members of my family.”
Harry and Meghan confirmed they will be spending time in both countries, adding that the geographic balance will help them raise their son “with an appreciation for the royal tradition into which he was born, while also providing [their] family with the space to focus on the next chapter, including the launch of our new charitable entity.”
The announcement shouldn’t be surprising, given the intense scrutiny Meghan’s personal and public life has faced since she started dating Harry in 2016. Meghan has constantly been a subject of the British tabloids, and in October, the couple sued the owners of the Sun and Daily Mirror — two of the biggest UK publishers — over alleged phone hacking.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex aren’t the first high-profile royals to retreat from their roles. In November, Prince Andrew, Queen Elizabeth’s second son, announced he would “step back from public duties for the foreseeable future,” after a disastrous BBC interview that addressed his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, who was accused of sexually abusing dozens of underage girls before his death in August. Andrew’s leave, however, seemed to be an attempt to mitigate the backlash he received.
Harry and Meghan’s loss of titles was expected, according to the Washington Post. Princess Diana and Sarah, the Duchess of York and former wife of Prince Andrew, lost their HRH titles when they divorced their royal husbands. It seems that Buckingham Palace has accepted the couple’s independent decision, with the queen issuing a formal statement of support: “I recognize the challenges they have experienced as a result of intense scrutiny over the last two years and support their wish for a more independent life.”
Sign up for The Goods’ newsletter. Twice a week, we’ll send you the best Goods stories exploring what we buy, why we buy it, and why it matters.