Feds target US companies caught in lucrative shark fin trade
By JOSHUA GOODMAN

Yesterday

Confiscated shark fins are shown during a news conference, Thursday, Feb. 6, 2020, in Doral, Fla. A spate of recent criminal indictments highlights how U.S. companies, taking advantage of a patchwork of federal and state laws, are supplying a market for fins that activists say is as reprehensible as the now-illegal trade in elephant ivory once was. (AP Photo/Wilfredo Lee, File)


MIAMI (AP) — It’s one of the seafood industry’s most gruesome hunts.

Every year, the fins of as many as 73 million sharks are sliced from the backs of the majestic sea predators, their bleeding bodies sometimes dumped back into the ocean where they are left to suffocate or die of blood loss.

But while the barbaric practice is driven by China, where shark fin soup is a symbol of status for the rich and powerful, America’s seafood industry isn’t immune from the trade.

A spate of recent criminal indictments highlights how U.S. companies, taking advantage of a patchwork of federal and state laws, are supplying a market for fins that activists say is as reprehensible as the now-illegal trade in elephant ivory once was.

A complaint quietly filed last month in Miami federal court accused an exporter based in the Florida Keys, Elite Sky International, of falsely labeling some 5,666 pounds of China-bound shark fins as live Florida spiny lobsters. Another company, south Florida-based Aifa Seafood, is also under criminal investigation for similar violations, according to two people on the condition of anonymity to discuss the ongoing probe. The company is managed by a Chinese-American woman who in 2016 pleaded guilty to shipping more than a half-ton of live Florida lobsters to her native China without a license.

The heightened scrutiny from law enforcement comes as Congress debates a federal ban on shark fins — making it illegal to import or export even foreign-caught fins. Every year, American wildlife inspectors seize thousands of shark fins while in transit to Asia for failing to declare the shipments.

___

This story was supported by funding from the Walton Family Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

___

While not all sharks are killed just for their fins, none of the other shark parts harvested in the U.S. and elsewhere — such as its meat, jaws or skin — can compete with fins in terms of value. Depending on the type of shark, a single pound of fins can fetch hundreds of dollars, making it one of the priciest seafood products by weight anywhere.

“If you’re going out of business because you can no longer sell fins, then what are you actually fishing for?,” said Whitney Webber, a campaign director at Washington-based Oceana, which supports the ban.

Since 2000, federal law has made it illegal to cut the fins off sharks and discard their bodies back into the ocean. However, individual states have wide leeway to decide whether or not businesses can harvest fins from dead sharks at a dock, or import them from overseas.

The legislation working its way through Congress would impose a near-total ban on trade in fins, similar to action taken by Canada in 2019. The legislation, introduced in 2017 by a bipartisan group of lawmakers, has majority support in both the House and Senate.

Among those opposing the proposed ban is Elite, which has hired lobbyists to urge Congress to vote against the bill, lobbying records show.

It’s not known where Elite obtained its fins. But in the criminal complaint, the company was also accused of sourcing lobster from Nicaragua and Belize that it falsely stated was caught in Florida. The company, affiliated with a Chinese-American seafood exporter based in New York City, was charged with violating the Lacey Act, a century-old statute that makes it a crime to submit false paperwork for any wildlife shipped overseas.

An attorney for Elite wouldn’t comment nor did two representatives of Aifa when reached by phone.

Overfishing has led to a 71% decline in shark species since the 1970s. The International Union for Conservation of Nature, a Switzerland-based group that tracks wildlife populations, estimates that over a third of the world’s 500-plus shark species are threatened with extinction.

Contrary to industry complaints about excessive regulations, the U.S. is hardly a model of sustainable shark management, said Webber. She pointed to a recent finding by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that less than 23% of the 66 shark stocks in U.S. waters are safe from overfishing. The status of more than half of shark stocks isn’t even known.

The situation in Europe is even worse: a new report from Greenpeace, called “Hooked on Sharks,” revealed what it said is evidence of the deliberate targeting of juvenile blue sharks by fishing fleets from Spain and Portugal. The report found that the U.S. is the world’s fourth-largest shark exporter behind Spain, China and Portugal, with exports of 3.2 million kilograms of meat — but not fins — worth over $11 million in 2020.

Webber said rather than safeguard a small shark fishing industry, the U.S. should blaze the trail to protect the slow-growing, long-living fish.

“We can’t ask other countries to clean up their act if we’re not doing it well ourselves,” said Webber.

She said the current laws aren’t enough of a deterrent in an industry where bad actors drawn by the promise of huge profits are a recurrent problem.

Case in point: Mark Harrison, a Florida fisherman who in 2009 pleaded guilty to three criminal counts tied to his export of shark fins, some of them protected species. He was ordered to pay a $5,000 fine and was banned from having anything to do with the shark fin trade for five years.

But federal prosecutors allege that he reconnected to associates of his former co-conspirators in 2013 in violation of the terms of his probation. He was arrested in 2020 on mail and wire fraud conspiracy charges as part of a five-year investigation, called Operation Apex, targeting a dozen individuals who also allegedly profited from drug trafficking. Prosecutors allege Harrison’s Florida-based Phoenix Fisheries was a “shell company” for individuals based in California, where possession of fins has been illegal since 2011.

As part of the bust, the Feds found documents about some 6 tons of shark fin exports and seized 18 totoaba fish bladders, a delicacy in Asia taken from an endangered species. They also seized 18,000 marijuana plants, multiple firearms and $1 million in diamonds — pointing to a criminal enterprise that transcended illegal seafood and stretched deep into the Mexican and Chinese mafia underworlds.

“This operation is about much more than disrupting the despicable practice of hacking the fins off sharks and leaving them to drown in the sea to create a bowl of soup,” Bobby Christine, then U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Georgia, said at the time.

An attorney for Harrison declined to comment on the case, which has yet to go to trial. But unlike his co-defendants, Harrison isn’t implicated in any drug-related or weapons offenses. Supporters say he has complied with all laws and is being unfairly targeted by bureaucrats overlooking the key role he played in the 1980s, when sharks were even more threatened, developing the U.S. shark fishery.

“They appear to be using the current widespread empathy toward sharks for publicity and career advancement in what would otherwise be a very routine matter,” reads a website run by supporters seeking to raise $75,000 for a “Shark Defense Fund” to help Harrison fight the charges.

“In the process, they are seeking to tarnish Mark’s reputation and deal a blow to the American shark fishery,” according to the website, which was taken down after the AP started making inquiries.

Demian Chapman, who heads shark research at the Mote Marine Laboratory in Sarasota, Florida, said that the push to ban commercial fishing of sharks could backfire.

“If you subtract the U.S. from the fin trade entirely, it won’t do anything to directly affect international demand and it’s likely that other countries, with far less regulation of their fisheries, will fill the void,” said Chapman.

He said the bill introduced by Sen. Cory Booker, a Democrat of New Jersey, appears to be driven by “shark fans” — not “shark fins” — and those who want to see the fish species afforded the same very high level of protection afforded to marine mammals and sea turtles. He said few in the U.S. are involved in the cruel, wasteful practice of shark finning and that the U.S.′ role as a transit hub for fins can be remedied without punishing American fishers.

“There’s a disconnect between perceptions and reality,” said Chapman. “In the 25 years I’ve been studying sharks, they’ve gone from demon fish to a group of species that many people want to protect. This is great but we have to support science-based management measures that address the real problems.”

___

Joshua Goodman on Twitter: @APJoshGoodman

___

Contact AP’s global investigative team at Investigative@ap.org or https://www.ap.org/tips/

California not counting methane leaks from idle wells


This photo provided by Clark Williams-Derry, shows a well leaking methane on May 10, 2022, in a neighborhood on the outskirts of Bakersfield, Calif. After 21 idle wells, including this one, were found to be leaking methane — some of them explosive levels of it — in May and June, the California Air Resources Board told The Associated Press that it’s not tallying leaks from idle wells. (Clark Williams-Derry via AP)


California claims to know how much climate-warming gas is going into the air from within its borders. It’s the law: California limits climate pollution and each year the limits get stricter.

The state has also been a major oil and gas producer for more than a century, and authorities are well aware some 35,000 old, inactive oil and gas wells perforate the landscape.

Yet officials with the agency responsible for regulating greenhouse gas emissions say they don’t include methane that leaks from these idle wells in their inventory of the state’s emissions.

Ira Leifer, an independent scientist and CEO of Bubbleology Research International, said the lack of data on emissions pouring or seeping out of idle wells calls into question the state’s ability to meet its ambitious goal to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045.

Residents and environmentalists from across the state have been voicing concern about the possibility of leaking idle or abandoned wells for years, but the concerns were heightened in May and June when 21 idle wells were discovered to be leaking methane in or near two Bakersfield neighborhoods. They say that the leaking wells are “an urgent public health issue,” because when a well is leaking methane, other gases often escape too.

Leifer said these “ridealong” gases were his biggest concern with the wells.

“Those other gases have significant health impacts,” Leifer said, yet we know even less about their quantities than we do about the methane.

In July, residents who live in the communities nearest the leaking wells protested at the California Geologic Management Division’s field offices, calling for better oversight.

“It’s clear that they are willing to ignore this public health emergency. Our communities are done waiting. CalGEM needs to do their job,” Cesar Aguirre, a community organizer with the Central California Environmental Justice Network, said in a statement.

Robert Howarth, a Cornell University methane researcher, agreed with Leifer that the amount of methane emissions from leaking wells isn’t well known and that it’s not a major source of emissions when compared with methane emissions from across the oil and gas industry.

Still, he said, “it’s adding something very clearly, and we shouldn’t be allowing it to happen.”

A ton of methane is 83 times worse for the climate than a ton of carbon dioxide, when compared over twenty years.

A 2020 study said emissions from idle wells are “more substantial” than from plugged wells in California, but recommended more data collection on inactive wells at the major oil and gas fields throughout the state.

Robert Jackson, a Stanford University climate scientist and co-author on that study, said they found high emissions from some of the idle wells they measured in the study.

In order to get a better idea of how much methane is leaking, the state of California is investing in projects on the ground and in the air. David Clegern, a spokesperson for CARB, said the agency is beginning a project to measure emissions from a sample of properly and improperly abandoned wells to estimate statewide emissions from them.

And in June, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed a budget that includes participation in a global effort to slash emissions called the Methane Accountability Project. The state will spend $100 million to use satellites to track large methane leaks in order to help the state identify sources of the gas and cap leaks.

Some research has already been done, too, to find out how much methane is coming from oil and gas facilities. A 2019 Nature study found that 26% of state methane emissions is coming from oil and gas. A new investigation by the Associated Press found methane is billowing from oil and gas equipment in the Permian Basin in Texas and companies under report it.

Howarth said even if methane from idle oil and gas wells isn’t a major pollution source, it should be a priority not just in California, but nationwide, to help the country meet its climate pledges.

“Methane dissipates pretty quickly in the atmosphere,” he said, “so cutting the emissions is really one of the simplest ways we have to slow the rate of global warming and meet that Paris target.”

A new Senate proposal would provide hundreds of millions dollars to plug wells and reduce pollution from them, especially in hard hit communities.

___

This story was first published on July 31, 2022. It was updated on August 2, 2022 to correct the affiliation of Ira Leifer. He is an independent scientist and CEO of Bubbleology Research International, an environmental research firm. He is no longer at the University of California Santa Barbara.

___

Follow Drew Costley on Twitter: @drewcostley.

___

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

Sandy Hook parents: Alex Jones claims created ‘living hell’

By JIM VERTUNO

August 1, 2022

1 of 12

Scarlett Lewis, mother of 6-year-old Sandy Hook shooting victim Jesse Lewis, testifies against Alex Jones Tuesday Aug. 2, 2022, at the Travis County Courthouse in Austin. Jones has been found to have defamed the parents of a Sandy Hook student for calling the attack a hoax. (Briana Sanchez/Austin American-Statesman via AP, Pool)


AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Fighting back tears and finally given the chance to confront conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, the parents of a 6-year-old killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting described being put through a “living hell” of death threats, harassment and ongoing trauma over the last decade caused by Jones using his media platforms to push claims that it was all a hoax.

The parents led a day of charged testimony that included the judge scolding the bombastic Jones for not being truthful with some of what he said under oath.

Neil Heslin and Scarlett Lewis, whose son Jesse was killed at Sandy Hook, took the witness stand Tuesday on the final day of testimony in the two-week defamation damages trial against Jones and his media company Free Speech Systems. They are seeking at least $150 million in damages.

In a gripping exchange, Lewis spoke directly to Jones, who was sitting about 10 feet away. Earlier that day, Jones was on his broadcast program telling his audience that Heslin is “slow” and being manipulated by bad people.

“I am a mother first and foremost and I know you are a father. My son existed,” Lewis said to Jones. “I am not deep state... I know you know that... And yet you’re going to leave this courthouse and say it again on your show.”

At one point, Lewis asked Jones: “Do you think I’m an actor?”

“No, I don’t think you’re an actor,” Jones responded before the judge admonished him to be quiet until called to testify.

Lewis continued trying to impress on Jones that the Sandy Hook shooting and trauma inflicted in the decade since then were real.

“It seems so incredible to me that we have to do this — that we have to implore you, to punish you — to get you to stop lying,” Lewis said. “I am so glad this day is here. I’m actually relieved. And grateful... that I got to say all this to you.”

Jones visibly shook his head several times while Scarlett Lewis was addressing him.

Heslin and Lewis are among several Sandy Hook families who have filed several lawsuits alleging that Sandy Hook hoax claims pushed by Jones have led to years of abuse by Jones and his followers.

Heslin and Lewis both said they fear for their lives and have been confronted by strangers at home and on the street. Heslin said his home and car have been shot at. The jury heard a death threat sent via telephone message to another Sandy Hook family.

“I can’t even describe the last nine and a half years, the living hell that I and others have had to endure because of the recklessness and negligence of Alex Jones,” Heslin said.

Scarlett Lewis also described threatening emails that seemed to have uncovered deep details of her personal life.

“It’s fear for your life,” Scarlett Lewis said. “You don’t know what they were going to do.”

Heslin said he didn’t know if the Sandy Hook hoax conspiracy theory originated with Jones, but it was Jones who “lit the match and started the fire” with an online platform and broadcast that reached millions worldwide.

“What was said about me and Sandy Hook itself resonates around the world,” Heslin said. “As time went on, I truly realized how dangerous it was.”

Jones skipped Heslin’s morning testimony while he was on his show — a move Heslin dismissed as “cowardly” — but arrived in the courtroom for part of Scarlett Lewis’ testimony. He was accompanied by several private security guards.

“Today is very important to me and it’s been a long time coming... to face Alex Jones for what he said and did to me. To restore the honor and legacy of my son,” Heslin said when Jones wasn’t there.

Heslin told the jury about holding his son with a bullet hole through his head, even describing the extent of the damage to his son’s body. A key segment of the case is a 2017 Infowars broadcast that said Heslin didn’t hold his son.

The jury was shown a school picture of a smiling Jesse taken two weeks before he was killed. The parents didn’t receive the photo until after the shooting. They described how Jesse was known for telling classmates to “run!” which likely saved lives.

An apology from Jones wouldn’t be good enough, the parents said.

“Alex started this fight,” Heslin said, “and I’ll finish this fight.”

Jones later took the stand himself, initially being combative with the judge, who had asked him to answer his own attorney’s question. Jones testified he had long wanted to apologize to the plaintiffs.

“I never intentionally tried to hurt you. I never said your name until this came to court,” Jones said. “The internet had questions, I had questions.”

Later, the judge sent the jury out of the room and strongly scolded Jones for telling the jury he complied with pretrial evidence gathering even though he didn’t, and that he is bankrupt, which has not been determined. Plaintiff’s attorneys were furious about Jones mentioning he is bankrupt, which they worry will taint a jury decision about damages.

“This is not your show,” Judge Maya Guerra Gamble told Jones. “Your beliefs do not make something true. You are under oath.”

Last September, Guerra admonished Jones in her default judgment over his failure to turn over documents requested by the Sandy Hook families. A court in Connecticut issued a similar default judgment against Jones for the same reasons in a separate lawsuit brought by other Sandy Hook parents.

Heslin and Lewis suffer from a form of post-traumatic stress disorder that comes from constant trauma, similar to that endured by soldiers in war zones or child abuse victims, a forensic psychologist who studied their cases and met with them testified Monday.

Jones has portrayed the lawsuit against him as an attack on his First Amendment rights.

At stake in the trial is how much Jones will pay. The parents have asked the jury to award $150 million in compensation for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The jury will then consider whether Jones and his company will pay punitive damages.

The trial is just one of several Jones faces.

Courts in Texas and Connecticut have already found Jones liable for defamation for his portrayal of the Sandy Hook massacre as a hoax. In both states, judges issued default judgements against Jones without trials because he failed to respond to court orders and turn over documents.

Jones has already tried to protect Free Speech Systems financially. The company filed for federal bankruptcy protection last week. Sandy Hook families have separately sued Jones over his financial claims, arguing that the company is trying to protect millions owned by Jones and his family through shell entities.

___

Associated Press writer Paul J. Weber contributed to this report.

Psychiatrist says Sandy Hook parents fear for their lives
By JIM VERTUNO

August 1, 2022

Alex Jones' lawyer Andino Reynal gives his opening statement to the jury, Tuesday, July 26, 2022, at the Travis County Courthouse in Austin, Texas.

 (Briana Sanchez/Austin American-Statesman via AP, Pool)

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — The parents of a Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victim live with a complex form of post-traumatic stress disorder and a constant fear that followers of conspiracy theorist Alex Jones will kill them, a psychiatrist testified Monday at Jones’ defamation trial.

Neil Heslin and Scarlett Lewis, the parents of 6-year-old Jesse Lewis, have sued Jones and his media company Free Speech Systems over the harassment and threats they and other parents say they’ve endured for years while Jones and his Infowars website claimed the 2012 attack that killed 20 first-graders and six school staffers was a hoax or faked.

“The overwhelming cause of their pain is what Jones is doing,” said Roy Lubit, a forensic psychiatrist hired by the plaintiffs to review the trauma faced by the parents.

The post-traumatic stress disorder the parents suffer from is not based on a single event, but on constant trauma, and is similar to that endured by soldiers in war zones or child abuse victims, Lubit said.
Heslin and Scarlett Lewis are consumed not just with the memory of their son’s horrific death, but the denials and attacks on them and their son’s legacy they’ve endured for years. He noted the security the parents hired to protect them at the two-week trial.

Lubit said Heslin has had guns fired at his home and has been accosted on the street. Scarlett Lewis told Lubit that she installed sophisticated surveillance equipment at her home and sleeps with a gun, a knife and pepper spray at her bedside.

Jones’ attorney Andino Reynal tried to attack the credibility of Lubit’s testimony and whether he is biased in favor of the parents, who are seeking at least $150 million in the case. He noted that Lubit briefly ran for Congress in Connecticut as a Democrat in 2018.

“You don’t like Alex Jones, do you?” Reynal asked.

“I don’t like what he does,” Lubit answered.

Mark Bankston, attorney for Heslin and Lewis, said the family has gone into isolation under a “large and professional security team” because of an incident that happened since the trial began. He did not provide details of what happened.

“They are in isolation and they are going to stay that way, and all I can tell you is they are terrified right now,” Bankston said.

Heslin and Lewis have have attended almost all of the trial since opening statements on July 26, and first arrived at the courthouse with a small security detail. They left the courtroom together Monday morning.

Michael Crouch, a Connecticut psychologist who has treated Heslin and Stewart, said the lies about a Sandy Hook hoax stole precious memories of their son.

“If Alex Jones, if he was spreading the belief, the lies, that Neil’s an actor, that means Jesse doesn’t exist. Which is crazy,” Crouch said. “You’re taking away what they know of their son, what they want to hold on to.”

Heslin and Lewis are expected to testify Tuesday as the final witnesses for their side.

Reynal said Jones will testify Tuesday in his own defense.

Monday’s testimony also included videotaped depositions from an Infowars reporter who said that at the website, there was no fact-checking, source-vetting, verifying information through second sources or training about journalistic standards.

Jones, who has attended only some of the trial, was not in the courtroom for Monday morning’s testimony.

The trial is in Texas because Jones lives in Austin and his media company, Free Speech Systems, is based there. The company filed for federal bankruptcy protection, though defense attorneys say that should not disrupt the trial, which is in its second week.

Free Speech Systems, which operates Infowars, listed $14.3 million in assets. That includes almost $1.16 million in cash and almost $1.6 million in property and equipment, as of May 31.

It also listed $79 million in liabilities, with a $54 million debt owed to PQPR Holdings.

Sandy Hook families have separately sued Jones over the $54 million debt listing, arguing that PQBR is a Nevada-registered company owned by Jones and his family through shell entities. That lawsuit in state court is still pending.

Courts in Texas and Connecticut have already found Jones liable for defamation for his portrayal of the Sandy Hook massacre as a hoax involving actors aimed at increasing gun control. In both states, judges issued default judgements against Jones without trials because he failed to respond to court orders and turn over documents.

___

For more of the AP’s coverage of school shootings: https://apnews.com/hub/school-shootings

EXPLAINER: Is Alex Jones’ trial about free speech rights?

By MICHAEL TARM

yesterday

 Alex Jones, left, arrives at the Travis County Courthouse in Austin, Texas, on July 26, 2022, with a piece of tape over his mouth that reads "Save the 1st." He shook hands with his lawyer, Andino Reynal. Although Jones portrays the lawsuit against him as an assault on the First Amendment, the parents who sued him say his statements were so malicious and obviously false that they fell well outside the bounds of speech protected by the constitutional clause. 

(Briana Sanchez/Austin American-Statesman via AP, Pool, File)

CHICAGO (AP) — Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones arrived at a Texas courthouse for his defamation trial for calling the Sandy Hook Elementary School attack a hoax with the words “Save the 1st” scrawled on tape covering his mouth.

Although Jones portrays the lawsuit against him as an assault on the First Amendment, the parents who sued him say his statements were so malicious and obviously false that they fell well outside the bounds of speech protected by the constitutional clause.

The ongoing trial in Austin, which is where Jones’ far-right Infowars website and its parent company are based, stems from a 2018 lawsuit brought by Neil Heslin and Scarlett Lewis, whose 6-year-old son was killed in the 2012 attack along with 19 other first-graders and six educators.

Jones is expected to testify Tuesday in his own defense.

Here’s a look at how the case relates to the First Amendment:

ARE ALL DEFAMATION LAWSUITS FIRST AMENDMENT CASES?

They are. Defamation laws evolved through decades of U.S. Supreme Court rulings on what is and isn’t protected speech.

Typically, the first question jurors answer at trials is whether the speech qualifies as unprotected defamation. If it does, they address the question of damages.

Jones’ trial largely skipped the first question and went straight to the second. From the start, it focused not on whether Jones must pay damages, but how much.

WHY IS HIS TRIAL DIFFERENT?

Jones seemed to sabotage his own chance to fully argue that his speech was protected by not complying with orders to hand over critical evidence, such as emails, which the parents hoped would prove he knew all along that his statements were false.

That led exasperated Judge Maya Guerra Gamble to enter a rare default judgment, declaring the parents winners before the trial even began.

Judges in other lawsuits against Jones have issued similar rulings.

“I don’t know why they didn’t cooperate,” said Stephen D. Solomon, a founding editor of New York University’s First Amendment Watch. “It is just really peculiar. ... It’s so odd to not even give yourself the chance to defend yourself.”

It might suggest Jones knew certain evidence would doom his defense.

“It is reasonable to presume that (Jones) and his team did not think they had a viable defense ... or they would have complied,” said Barry Covert, a Buffalo, New York, First Amendment lawyer.

HAVE BOTH SIDES REFERRED TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT?

Yes. During opening statements last week, plaintiffs’ lawyer Mark Bankston told jurors it doesn’t protect defamatory speech.

“Speech is free,” he said, “but lies you have to pay for.”

Jones’ lawyer Andino Reynal said the case is crucial to free speech.

And Jones made similar arguments in a deposition.

“If questioning public events and free speech is banned because it might hurt somebody’s feelings, we are not in America anymore,” he said.

Jones, who had said actors staged the shooting as a pretext to strengthen gun control, later acknowledged it occurred.

WHAT ARE KEY ELEMENTS OF DEFAMATION?

Defamation must involve someone making a false statement of fact publicly — typically via the media — and purporting that it’s true. An opinion can’t be defamatory. The statement also must have done actual damage to someone’s reputation.

The parents suing Jones say his lies about their child’s death harmed their reputations and led to death threats from Jones’ followers.

IS IT EASIER FOR NON-PUBLIC FIGURES TO PROVE DEFAMATION?

Yes. They must merely show a false statement was made carelessly.

In New York Times v. Sullivan in 1964, the Supreme Court said the bar for public figures must be higher because scrutiny of them is so vital to democracy. They must prove “actual malice,” that a false statement was made “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”

ARE THE PARENTS PUBLIC FIGURES?

Their lawyers say they clearly aren’t in the category of politicians or celebrities who stepped voluntarily into the public arena.

The high court, however, has said those who temporarily enter public debates can become temporary public figures.

Jones argues that Heslin did just that, entering the national debate over guns by advocating for tougher gun laws on TV and before Congress.

WHAT DAMAGES ARE BEING SOUGHT?

The plaintiffs are seeking $150 million for emotional distress, as well as reputational and punitive damages.

Reynal told jurors that his client has been punished enough, losing millions of dollars being booted off major social media platforms.

He asked them to award the plaintiffs $1.

CAN FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUES INFLUENCE THE TRIAL’S OUTCOME?

Indirectly, yes.

Jones can’t argue that he’s not liable for damages on the grounds that his speech was protected. The judge already ruled he is liable. But as a way to limit damages, his lawyers can argue that his speech was protected.

“Jurors could say (Jones’ defamatory statements) is actually something we don’t want to punish very hard,” said Kevin Goldberg, a First Amendment specialist at the Maryland-based Freedom Forum.

COULD JONES HAVE WON IF THE TRIAL WAS ALL ABOUT FREE SPEECH?

He could have contended that his statements were hyperbolic opinion — that wild, non-factual exaggeration is his schtick.

But it would have been tough to persuade jurors that he was merely riffing and opining.

“It was a verifiable fact the massacre occurred at Sandy Hook,” said Solomon. “That’s not opinion. It is a fact.” Even if the parents were deemed public figures, imposing the higher standard, “I think Alex Jones would still lose,” he said.

But Covert said defamation is always a challenge to prove.

“I wouldn’t discount the possibility Jones could have prevailed,” he said. “Trying to speculate what a jury would find is always a fool’s errand.”

MIGHT THE SUPREME COURT BE SYMPATHETIC TO ANY JONES APPEAL?

Conservatives and liberal justices have found that some deeply offensive speech is protected.

In 2011, the high court voted 8-to-1 to overturn a verdict against the Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church for picketing military funerals with signs declaring that God hates the U.S. for tolerating homosexuality.

“As a Nation we have chosen ... to protect even hurtful speech ... to ensure that we do not stifle public debate,” the ruling said.

But it and the Jones case have key differences.

“The were both extreme, outrageous, shocking, deplorable. But the Westboro Baptist Church was also manifestly political and not defamatory ... not about any one person’s reputation” Goldberg said.

He added: “I’d be shocked if (Jones’) case ever ended up in the Supreme Court.”

___

For more of the AP’s coverage of school shootings: https://apnews.com/hub/school-shootings

SEE

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2022/08/criminal-capitalim-conspiracy-website.html

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2022/08/news-analysis-lies-for-profit-can-sandy.html

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2022/07/detective-alex-jones-most-dangerous.html

https://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2022/04/alex-jones-infowars-weighs-possible.html

Atlanta’s image challenged by facts of 1906 race massacre

By MICHAEL WARREN

1 of 9

This photo courtesy of Kenan Research Center at the Atlanta History Center shows a view of Marietta Street, looking west from the Five Points area in downtown Atlanta in 1906. Few have been taught about the 1906 Atlanta Race Massacre, the white-on-Black violence in Atlanta that shattered dreams of racial harmony and forced thousands from their homes.

 (Courtesy of Kenan Research Center at the Atlanta History Center via AP)


ATLANTA (AP) — Everyone who moves through downtown Atlanta today passes places where innocent Black men and women were pulled from trolleys, shot in their workplaces, chased through the streets and beaten to death by a mob of 10,000 white men and boys.

But few have been taught about the 1906 Atlanta Race Massacre, which shaped the city’s geography, economy, society and power structure in lasting ways. Much like the Red Summer of 1919 in the South and Northeast and the Tulsa Race Massacre of 1921 in Oklahoma would years later, the white-on-Black violence in Atlanta shattered dreams of racial harmony and forced thousands from their homes.

A grassroots coalition is working to restore Atlanta’s killings and their legacy to public memory. Historic markers and tours are planned for this September’s anniversary. A one-act play will be performed simultaneously at group dinners across the city. Organizers are seeking 500 hosts, with the ambitious goal of seating 5,000 people to discuss the lasting effects.

These activists say the massacre doesn’t fit comfortably in Atlanta’s “cradle of the civil rights movement” narrative, but they insist on truth-telling as some politicians push to ignore the nation’s history of racial violence.

Mislabeled a riot, the killings of at least 25 Black people and the destruction of Black-owned businesses had a specific purpose: thwarting their economic success and voting power before African-Americans could claim equal status, said King Williams, a journalist who gives tours describing what happened.

“The mob began its work early in the evening, pulling negroes from street cars and beating them with clubs, bricks and stones,” The Associated Press reported on Sept. 24, 1906, adding that “negroes were beaten, cut and stamped upon in an unreasoning, mad frenzy. If a negro ventured resistance or remonstrated, it meant practically sure death.”

The violence began where Georgia State University’s campus is now. Enraged by unsupported headlines about attacks on white women and the evils of “race-mixing,” the mob set fire to saloons and pounced on Black men and women headed home from work, Williams explains on the tour.

Their next target was the “Crystal Palace,” an opulent barbershop where Alonzo Herndon made his first fortune catering to white elites. Poorer white people couldn’t stomach such success by a Black man and shattered the place, Williams says.

Bodies were stacked at the statue of newspaperman Henry Grady. Williams describes Grady as a post-Civil War “demagogue who championed Atlanta, but also championed a lot of the racial rhetoric that we still see echoing today.” His statue is four blocks from CNN Center, and for most people “it’s just a thing they walk by,” Williams said.

Steps from there, some Black people either jumped or were thrown from the Forsyth Street bridge onto the railroad tracks below. Others reached shelter inside the gates of the Gammon Theological Seminary in Brownsville, a thriving African American neighborhood 3 miles (5 kilometers) to the south.

That’s where the mob, now “deputized” as law enforcers, came searching for weapons on the third day, ransacking businesses and pulling women and children from their homes. One white officer was killed and some 250 Black people were arrested, including 60 who were convicted. Not one white person was held responsible for any of the deaths, community organizer Ann Hill Bond said.

The cause was not in doubt. Atlanta Constitution editor Clark Howell and former Atlanta Journal publisher Hoke Smith had outdone each other vowing to disenfranchise Black voters while campaigning for governor. As Election Day approached, the papers printed baseless stories about attempted attacks on white women.

A Fulton County Grand Jury cited “inflammatory headlines” for fomenting the violence, but when “Voice of the Negro” publisher J. Maxwell Barber tied those articles to the racist campaigns, he was run out of town.

Once governor, Smith signed laws that kept most Black people from voting for another half-century. Thousands abandoned Atlanta, which became two-thirds white by 1910, the Census showed. City officials cited the need to avoid violence as they imposed segregation on neighborhoods, including “Sweet Auburn” Avenue, which became a model of African American economic self-sufficiency. Herndon gave up barbering to become one of the nation’s leading insurers for Black families.




The “riot” label still stuck when the massacre was finally added to Georgia’s eighth-grade curriculum in 2007.

“It is important for us to use correct language when we’re speaking of and remembering and honoring the lives that were lost. This was a massacre. People were killed,” said Bond, who leads a #changethename campaign. “And this is just the proper way to truth-tell in order to get to healing. If you don’t rip the Band-Aid off, you never get to healing.”

The massacre remains “terrifying” to playwright Marlon Burnley, whose one-act play will be performed by the Out of Hand Theater company at September’s Equitable Dinners.

“The biggest through-line for me is the presence of fake news and just made-up stories and fearmongering. And I feel like that’s just a constant in our history,” Burnley said.

Williams gets a variety of reactions on his tours. For college students “it’s like discovering fire,” he says. Older Atlantans are surprised they never heard the details before. “People who have skin in the game in the city” — civic boosters and people who run non-profits or work in politics — often get squeamish, he says.




“When you talk about the history of what happened in 1906, a lot of that overlaps today,” Williams says. “And a lot of people just don’t like that. It really just doesn’t shine on Atlanta when we try to present ourselves to be a respected city on a hill.”

The violence doesn’t match the image many Black people have of Atlanta as a kind of Wakanda, the highly advanced mythical African nation of “Black Panther” fame, said Allison Bantimba, who co-founded the Fulton County Remembrance Coalition.

“I do think that restoring this history to public knowledge will make a difference,” Bantimba said. “The second we pull down the veil and and acknowledge all of that, a lot of people will have to reorient themselves.”

Roe v Wade: Kansas voters protect abortion rights, block path to ban

2 Aug, 2022
By John Hanna and Margaret Stafford

Kansas voters protected the right to get an abortion in their state, rejecting a measure that would have allowed their Republican-controlled Legislature to tighten abortion restrictions or ban it outright.

The referendum in the conservative state was the first test of US voter sentiment about abortion rights since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade in June. It was a major victory for abortion rights advocates, following weeks in which many states in the South and Midwest largely banned abortion.

Voters rejected a proposed amendment to the Kansas Constitution that would have added language stating that it does not grant the right to abortion. A 2019 state Supreme Court decision declared that access to abortion is a "fundamental" right under the state's Bill of Rights, preventing a ban and potentially thwarting legislative efforts to enact new restrictions.

The referendum was closely watched as a barometer of liberal and moderate voters' anger over the June ruling scrapping the nationwide right to abortion. The measure's failure also was significant because of how conservative Kansas is, and how twice as many Republicans as Democrats have voted in its August primaries in the decade leading up to Tuesday night's tilt.

Kristy Winter, 52, a Kansas City-area teacher and unaffiliated voter, voted against the measure and brought her 16-year-old daughter with her to her polling place.

Jessica Porter, communications chair for the Shawnee County, Kansas, Democratic Party. 

Photo / AP

"I want her to have the same right to do what she feels is necessary, mostly in the case of rape or incest," she said. "I want her to have the same rights my mother has had most of her life."

Opponents of the measure predicted that the anti-abortion groups and lawmakers behind the measure would push quickly for an abortion ban if voters approved it. Before the vote, the measure's supporters refused to say whether they would pursue a ban as they appealed to voters who supported both some restrictions and some access to abortion.

Stephanie Kostreva, a 40-year-old school nurse from the Kansas City area and a Democrat, said she voted in favour of the measure because she is a Christian and believes life begins at conception.

"I'm not full-scale that there should never be an abortion," she said. "I know there are medical emergencies, and when the mother's life is in danger there is no reason for two people to die."

An anonymous group sent a misleading text to Kansas voters telling them to "vote yes" to protect choice, but it was suspended late Monday from the Twilio messaging platform it was using, a spokesperson said. Twilio did not identify the sender.

The 2019 Kansas Supreme Court decision protecting abortion rights blocked a law that banned the most common second-trimester procedure, and another law imposing special health regulations on abortion providers also is on hold. Abortion opponents argued that all of the state's existing restrictions were in danger, though some legal scholars found that argument dubious. Kansas doesn't ban most abortions until the 22nd week of pregnancy.

Backers of the measure began with an advantage because anti-abortion lawmakers set the vote for primary election day, when for the past 10 years Republicans have cast twice as many ballots as Democrats. But the early-voting electorate was more Democratic than usual.

The Kansas vote is the start of what could be a long-running series of legal battles playing out where lawmakers are more conservative on abortion than governors or state courts. Kentucky will vote in November on whether to add language similar to Kansas' to its state constitution.

Meanwhile, Vermont will decide in November whether to add an abortion rights provision to its constitution. A similar question is likely headed to the November ballot in Michigan.

In Kansas, both sides together spent more than USD$14 million on their campaigns. Abortion providers and abortion rights groups were key donors to the "no" side, while Catholic dioceses heavily funded the "yes" campaign.

The state has had strong anti-abortion majorities in its Legislature for 30 years, but voters have regularly elected Democratic governors, including Laura Kelly in 2018. She opposed the proposed amendment, saying changing the state constitution would "throw the state back into the Dark Ages."

State Attorney General Derek Schmidt, a Republican hoping to unseat Kelly, supported the proposed constitutional amendment. He told the Catholic television network EWTN before the election that "there's still room for progress" in decreasing abortions, without spelling out what he would sign as governor.

Although abortion opponents pushed almost annually for new restrictions until the 2019 state Supreme Court ruling, they felt constrained by past court rulings and Democratic governors like Kelly.

Kansas voters resoundingly protect their access to abortion

By JOHN HANNA and MARGARET STAFFORD

1 of 20

Calley Malloy, left, of Shawnee, Kan.; Cassie Woolworth, of Olathe, Kan.; and Dawn Rattan, right, of Shawnee, Kan., applaud during a primary watch party Tuesday, Aug. 2, 2022, in Overland Park, Kan. Kansas voters rejected a ballot measure in a conservative state with deep ties to the anti-abortion movement that would have allowed the Republican-controlled Legislature to tighten restrictions or ban abortion outright.(Tammy Ljungblad AP)/The Kansas City Star via AP)

TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — Kansas voters on Tuesday sent a resounding message about their desire to protect abortion rights, rejecting a ballot measure in a conservative state with deep ties to the anti-abortion movement that would have allowed the Republican-controlled Legislature to tighten restrictions or ban the procedure outright.

It was the first test of voter sentiment after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in June that overturned the constitutional right to abortion, providing an unexpected result with potential implications for the coming midterm elections.

While it was just one state, the heavy turnout for an August primary that typically favors Republicans was a major victory for abortion rights advocates. With most of the vote counted, they were prevailing by roughly 20 percentage points, with the turnout approaching what’s typical for a fall election for governor.

The vote also provided a dash of hope for Democrats nationwide grasping for a game-changer during an election year otherwise filled with dark omens for their prospects in November.

“This vote makes clear what we know: the majority of Americans agree that women should have access to abortion and should have the right to make their own health care decisions,” President Joe Biden said in a statement.

After calling on Congress to “restore the protections of Roe” in federal law, Biden added, “And, the American people must continue to use their voices to protect the right to women’s health care, including abortion.”

The Kansas vote also provided a warning to Republicans who had celebrated the Supreme Court ruling and were moving swiftly with abortion bans or near-bans in nearly half the states.

“Kansans bluntly rejected anti-abortion politicians’ attempts at creating a reproductive police state,” said Kimberly Inez McGuire, executive director of Unite for Reproductive & Gender Equity. ”Today’s vote was a powerful rebuke and a promise of the mounting resistance.”

The proposed amendment to the Kansas Constitution would have added language stating that it does not grant the right to abortion. A 2019 state Supreme Court decision declared that access to abortion is a “fundamental” right under the state’s Bill of Rights, preventing a ban and potentially thwarting legislative efforts to enact new restrictions.

The referendum was closely watched as a barometer of liberal and moderate voters’ anger over the Supreme Court’s ruling scrapping the nationwide right to abortion. In Kansas, abortion opponents wouldn’t say what legislation they’d pursue if the amendment were passed and bristled when opponents predicted it would lead to a ban.

Mallory Carroll, a spokesperson for the national anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, described the vote as “a huge disappointment” for the movement and called on anti-abortion candidates to “go on the offensive.”

She added that after the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, “We must work exponentially harder to achieve and maintain protections for unborn children and their mothers.”

The measure’s failure also was significant because of Kansas’ connections to anti-abortion activists. Anti-abortion “Summer of Mercy” protests in 1991 inspired abortion opponents to take over the Kansas Republican Party and make the Legislature more conservative. They were there because Dr. George Tiller’s clinic was among the few in the U.S. known to do abortions late in pregnancy, and he was murdered in 2009 by an anti-abortion extremist.

Anti-abortion lawmakers wanted to have the vote coincide with the state’s August primary, arguing they wanted to make sure it got the focus, though others saw it as an obvious attempt to boost their chances of winning. Twice as many Republicans as Democrats have voted in the state’s August primaries in the decade leading up to Tuesday’s election.

“This outcome is a temporary setback, and our dedicated fight to value women and babies is far from over,” said Emily Massey, a spokesperson for the pro-amendment campaign.

The electorate in Tuesday’s vote wasn’t typical for a Kansas primary, particularly because tens of thousands of unaffiliated voters cast ballots.

Kristy Winter, 52, a Kansas City-area teacher and unaffiliated voter, voted against the measure and brought her 16-year-old daughter with her to her polling place.

“I want her to have the same right to do what she feels is necessary, mostly in the case of rape or incest,” she said. “I want her to have the same rights my mother has had most of her life.”

Opponents of the measure predicted that the anti-abortion groups and lawmakers behind the measure would push quickly for an abortion ban if voters approved it. Before the vote, the measure’s supporters refused to say whether they would pursue a ban as they appealed to voters who supported both some restrictions and some access to abortion.

Stephanie Kostreva, a 40-year-old school nurse from the Kansas City area and a Democrat, said she voted in favor of the measure because she is a Christian and believes life begins at conception.

“I’m not full scale that there should never be an abortion,” she said. “I know there are medical emergencies, and when the mother’s life is in danger there is no reason for two people to die.”

An anonymous group sent a misleading text Monday to Kansas voters telling them to “vote yes” to protect choice, but it was suspended late Monday from the Twilio messaging platform it was using, a spokesperson said. Twilio did not identify the sender.

The 2019 Kansas Supreme Court decision protecting abortion rights blocked a law that banned the most common second-trimester procedure, and another law imposing special health regulations on abortion providers also is on hold. Abortion opponents argued that all of the state’s existing restrictions were in danger, though some legal scholars found that argument dubious. Kansas doesn’t ban most abortions until the 22nd week of pregnancy.

The Kansas vote is the start of what could be a long-running series of legal battles playing out where lawmakers are more conservative on abortion than governors or state courts. Kentucky will vote in November on whether to add language similar to Kansas’ proposed amendment to its state constitution.

Meanwhile, Vermont will decide in November whether to add an abortion rights provision to its constitution. A similar question is likely headed to the November ballot in Michigan.

In Kansas, both sides together spent more than $14 million on their campaigns. Abortion providers and abortion rights groups were key donors to the “no” side, while Catholic dioceses heavily funded the “yes” campaign.

The state has had strong anti-abortion majorities in its Legislature for 30 years, but voters have regularly elected Democratic governors, including Laura Kelly in 2018. She opposed the proposed amendment, saying changing the state constitution would “throw the state back into the Dark Ages.”

State Attorney General Derek Schmidt, a Republican hoping to unseat Kelly, supported the proposed constitutional amendment. He told the Catholic television network EWTN before the election that “there’s still room for progress” in decreasing abortions, without spelling out what he would sign as governor.

Although abortion opponents pushed almost annually for new restrictions until the 2019 state Supreme Court ruling, they felt constrained by past court rulings and Democratic governors like Kelly.

___

Stafford reported from Overland Park and Olathe.

___

Follow John Hanna on Twitter at https://twitter.com/apjdhanna. For more AP coverage of the abortion issue, go to https://apnews.com/hub/abortion.

Mysterious holes found on ocean floor have scientists 'stumped'

By Wyatt Loy, Accuweather.com

The depths of the Earth's oceans contain many secrets that often take researchers years of investigation to solve. A new mystery in the Atlantic Ocean is almost literally taking them down the rabbit hole.

On July 23, along the seafloor off the coast of Portugal beneath the island chain of the Azores, scientists working with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration found a dozen sets of small holes in the sand at a depth of nearly two miles, with no clues of how they got there. Two weeks later and 300 miles away, they found even more mysterious holes, exactly the same as the first.

A close look at the sets of holes along the floors of the Atlantic Ocean. The origins of the holes are unclear. Photo courtesy of NOAA Ocean Exploration

From May to September, NOAA is carrying out an expedition called Voyage to the Ridge 2022 in this relatively unexplored region of the Atlantic. NOAA scientists set off from Newport, R.I., to Newfoundland, Canada, on the first leg of the trip and then left Norfolk, Va., for the Azores. They will finish up by traversing the Atlantic in the other direction, to Puerto Rico and the Caribbean. Their research vessel, called the Okeanos Explorer, is investigating the coral and sponge colonies on volcanic ridges. Finding the holes was more of a happy accident.

This isn't the first time scientists encountered these strange-looking patterns. NOAA spokeswoman Emily Crum told The New York Times that in 2004, right in the vicinity of this initial discovery, researchers recorded the first sighting of the holes.

"The origin of the holes has scientists stumped," NOAA's Ocean Exploration project tweeted. "The holes look human made, but the little piles of sediment around them suggest they were excavated by ... something."

"There is something important going on there and we don't know what it is," NOAA deep-sea biologist Michael Vecchione told the Times. "This highlights the fact that there are still mysteries out there."

Hypotheses regarding the origins of the holes range from human-made causes to the tracks of an undiscovered species of animal or a gas vent blowing bubbles up through the sand. Vecchione co-authored a paper in 2022 discussing the gaps in knowledge of the holes and what could be causing them.

According to the paper, the holes appear to have been either excavated from the top or pierced up from underneath, meaning whatever created them could have been digging the holes or burrowed under the sediment and potentially used the holes as a breathing apparatus -- like a snorkel. There's no definitive evidence to say for sure, though, and it will take more time and investigations to find the truth.

NOAA scientists use this underwater drone, called Deep Discoverer, to examine features of the seafloor up to 19,000 feet below the ocean's surface. 

Photo courtesy of NOAA Ocean Exploration

Vecchione, who was present for this latest run-in with the mysterious holes, said he was happy to see them again after nearly two decades but also expressed disappointment that there are still no answers. The Okeanos Explorer is docked in the Azores until Saturday, when the vessel will set out for its third Voyage to the Ridge expedition.

Bipartisan Senate vote sends burn pit benefits bill to Biden's desk


Brielle Robinson, the 9-year-old daughter of Sgt. First Class Heath Robinson, holds a poster during a press conference on the Senate's failure to pass The PACT Act at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Thursday. Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI | License Photo

Aug. 2 (UPI) -- The U.S. Senate gave strong bipartisan support in its second vote on legislation granting healthcare coverage to veterans who have been exposed to toxic burn pits during service.

The chamber voted 86-11 in favor of the Honoring our PACT Act. The House passed it in June, which means the legislation now goes to President Joe Biden's desk for a signature.

Biden released a statement saying he looks forward to signing the bill.

"I have long said we have a lot of obligations as a nation, but we have only one sacred obligation -- to prepare and equip those we send to war and to take care of them and their families when they come home," he said.

Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York said it was "shameful" that service members who were exposed to toxic chemicals during duty abroad should be denied the help they need. He called the passage a "wonderful moment."

"It is infuriating," he said on the Senate floor ahead of the vote. "Today, we tell our veterans suffering from cancers, lung diseases, other ailments from burn pits that the wait is over for the benefits you deserve.

"No more pointless delays on getting the healthcare you need. No more jumping through hoops and even hiring lawyers just to get an answer from the VA."

In addition to healthcare services and other benefits for those suffered from toxic-related illnesses, the PACT Act gives financial assistance to spouses and children of those who died from toxic exposure, including tuition, life insurance home loan assistance and healthcare.

Senate Republicans blocked the legislation last week over what Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., described as a "budget that would allow $400 billion of current law spending to be moved from the discretionary to the mandatory spending category."

The Senate initially passed the bill by a 84-14 vote in June, but after the legislation underwent changes in the House the upper chamber was unable to clear a filibuster-proof 60 votes Wednesday.

Toomey introduced an amendment Tuesday that would have changed the accounting issue, but it failed to reach a 60-vote threshold for passage.

The votes against the PACT Act drew ire from Senate Democrats, veterans groups and comedian Jon Stewart, who spoke outside the Capitol in support of the legislation.

"You don't tell their cancer to take a recess, tell their cancer to stay home and go visit their families," Stewart, of Daily Show fame, told reporters after the hearing, at times pausing to regain his composure. "This disgrace, if this is America first, America is [expletive]."

Hubble Space Telescope reveals mirror image of distant galaxy

A new image from the Hubble Space Telescope captures a distant galaxy in the northern constellation Bootes, along with the mirror image of that galaxy created through gravitational lensing. Photo courtesy of J.Rigby/ESA/Hubble & NASA.

Aug. 2 (UPI) -- A new image of a single distant galaxy from the Hubble Space Telescope has NASA astronomers seeing double.

The space agency released the photo Tuesday showing what appears to be the mirror image of two galaxies at the center, which NASA says is actually one gravitationally lensed galaxy called SGAS J143845+145407.

The galaxy is located in the northern constellation Bootes.

The mirrored effect in the photo comes from gravitational lensing, which is how a large object, like a galaxy, can appear to be distorted, duplicated or even magnified.

"Gravitational lensing occurs when a massive celestial body -- such as a galaxy cluster -- causes a sufficient curvature of spacetime for the path of light around it to be visibly bent, as if by a lens," the European Space Agency said in a press release.

"Appropriately, the body causing the light to curve is called a gravitational lens, and the distorted background object is referred to as being 'lensed.'"

Hubble was the first telescope to detect faint and distant gravitational lenses that could not be seen with ground-based telescopes because of the Earth's atmosphere. Gravitational lensing, or distortion that can act as a magnifying glass, allows astronomers to view objects that would otherwise be too faint to see.

In March, the Hubble Space Telescope spotted a star 12.9 billion light years away from Earth, the oldest and most distant object ever recorded.

NASA said light from the star existed within the first billion years after the so-called Big Bang and was seen through space warped by a galaxy cluster that created a "natural magnifying glass."

Images captured last month from the James Webb Space Telescope include several showing lensed galaxies that appear to be distorted.

Hubble's sensitivity allows the telescope to take full advantage of gravitational lensing to look inside galaxies in the early Universe, according to ESA.

"The lensing reveals details of distant galaxies that would otherwise be unobtainable, and this allows astronomers to determine star formation in early galaxies," ESA said. "This in turn gives scientists a better insight into how the overall evolution of galaxies has unfolded."

TODAY IS FLY PAST 
Enormous Asteroid Traveling at 72,000 mph Only Just Spotted Nearing Earth

Aristos Georgiou - Monday


An asteroid that could measure more than 1,200 feet across—as tall as the Empire State Building—is set to fly safely past Earth later this week after being discovered just a few days ago.


Artist's illustration of an asteroid. A space rock, dubbed 2022 OE2, will make a close approach to our planet on Wednesday.

The space rock, dubbed 2022 OE2, will make a close approach to our planet on Wednesday, figures from NASA's Center for Near Earth Object Studies (CNEOS) database show.

At 8:23 p.m. ET on that day, the asteroid is predicted to come within around 3.2 million miles of Earth in its own orbit around the sun.

This is around 13 times the average distance between the Earth and the Moon and, as such, there is no threat of a collision with our planet.

Asteroids are rocky objects that orbit the sun, much like planets, although they are significantly smaller.

Estimating the size of asteroids is tricky because astronomers often have to work out how big the object is based on how bright it appears in the sky.

"The bigger it is, the more light it will reflect and thus the brighter it will seem," Greg Brown, an astronomer at Royal Observatory Greenwich in the United Kingdom, previously told Newsweek. "However, this requires an assumption of how reflective the material it is made from is, which can vary greatly. Add on a number of other complications and the actual size of an object can be very different from the calculated value."

As a result of these uncertainties, astronomers usually provide a range for size estimates, which in the case of 2022 OE2 is 170-380 meters (558-1,247 feet).

At the upper end of this size range, the asteroid would stand as tall as the Empire State Building in New York City, which is around 1,250 feet in height.

According to the CNEOS figures, 2022 OE2 will be traveling at a staggering speed of nearly 72,000 miles per hour. This is about 40 times faster than a rifle bullet, and around one third as fast as a bolt of lightning.

The space rock is one of more than 29,000 near-Earth objects, or NEOs, that scientists have discovered to date—the vast majority of which are asteroids. The term is used to refer to any astronomical body that passes within around 30 million miles of our planet's orbit.

The 2022 OE2 asteroid was only discovered on July 26, 2022, just a few days before its close approach. While astronomers have identified thousands of NEOs, these objects can actually be quite difficult to spot, partly because they are relatively small and dark in comparison to other objects in the sky.

House-Sized Asteroid Expected To Barely Miss Earth

View on Watch

Some NEOs are classified as "potentially hazardous," meaning they have orbits that come within 4.6 million miles of Earth's own path around the sun, while also measuring more than 140 meters (around 460 feet) in diameter.

The size of potentially hazardous objects means they could produce significant damage on at least a regional scale in the event that one of them collides with Earth. However, none of the potentially hazardous NEOs that we know about has any chance of colliding with the Earth over the next century or so, according to CNEOS manager Paul Chodas.

Why Stephen King testified for the government in a major publishing merger trial
Hannah Murdock - Yesterday 

Stephen King testified Tuesday against his own publisher, Simon & Schuster, in a major antitrust trial.

© Patrick Semansky, Associated Press

Author Stephen King arrives at federal court before testifying for the Department of Justice as it bids to block the proposed merger of two of the world’s biggest publishers, Penguin Random House and Simon & Schuster, Tuesday, Aug. 2, 2022, in Washington. King gave testimony opposing the merger.

The horror author was the star witness for the government in a lawsuit against the proposed merger of Penguin Random House and rival publisher Simon & Schuster, The Associated Press reported.

The Department of Justice is suing to block the proposed $2.2 billion merger, which would bring the “Big Five” book publishers down to four, according to The Associated Press.

The government argues that the merger would create less competition in the publishing market, leading to fewer options for consumers and potentially leading to authors being paid less.

“The evidence will show that the proposed merger would likely result in authors of anticipated top-selling books receiving smaller advances, meaning authors who labor for years over their manuscripts will be paid less for their efforts,” the government argued in a brief, per Reuters.

King has been outspoken about his disapproval of the merger, tweeting last year, “The more the publishers consolidate, the harder it is for indie publishers to survive.”

While on the stand, King stated that “consolidation is bad for the competition.” He also talked about the difficulties to earn a living that authors experience in the publishing industry today.

“It’s a tough world out there now. That’s why I came,” he said, according to Deadline.

The trial is expected to last two to three weeks, according to Reuters.