Podcasts about Rights

In this pre-July 4th episode of the Derek Hunter Podcast, Dean Karayanis kicks off the celebration of America's 250th anniversary by taking aim at the media's determination to paint the U.S. as a dystopia. Despite negative narratives and travel warnings, international tourists visiting for the World Cup are flooding social media with praise for American life — right down to our air conditioning, Buc-ee's, and Bass Pro Shops. Dean breaks down the condescending media coverage from The New York Times and Politico that report Democrats are deeply uncomfortable with foreign visitors actually enjoying the United States. The monologue transitions to international relations and immigration policy following a Supreme Court ruling on Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitians and other foreign nationals. Dean criticizes the media's framing of the Iranian national soccer team's elimination and calls out establishment figures like Mike DeWine and John Kasich for condescending, racist portrayals of Haitians, along with comparisons to the strict border enforcement policies of the Dominican Republic and Canada. Finally, drawing from his latest column in the New York Sun, Dean looks back at economic history to debunk Pope Leo's declaration of food as “a basic human right.” By revisiting Governor William Bradford's diaries, he explains how even the deeply pious Pilgrims at Plymouth Colony tried and quickly abandoned collectivism because it fundamentally goes against human nature. Dean closes with a patriotic reminder of the patriots who won the nation's independence — including 25% of Americans at the Battle of Yorktown who were Black — and issues a call to celebrate the American experiment.

Today David gives his answer to whether the following statement in the Declaration of Independence is more influenced by enlightenment hubris than sound Christian theology: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." The difference between the one and the other is manifest in a new version he's authored and would encourage future generations to bring to fruition.

My co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you the episode 176 of the IP Fridays Podcast. Today's interview guest is returning guest Franklin Graves, who is a senior counsel at Linkedin and teaching IP law at Emerson College. With my co-host Ken Suzan he is discussing how the law for creators has dramatically changed in the past years. Franklin Graves is expressing his personal views and not the views of Linkedin or Microsoft. He is talking about the paper “Upload Complete” before he joined Linkedin. Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/franklingraves/ Paper: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5271442 Website: https://creatoreconomylaw.com/ But before we jump into this interview, I have news for you! Richard Meade, a judge on the UK High Court and one of the most prominent figures in European patent law, was appointed Lord Justice of Appeal at the British Court of Appeal on June 12, 2026. Meade played a key role in numerous landmark British patent decisions, particularly in the area of standard-essential patents (SEPs) and FRAND licenses. In Insulet Corp. v. EOFlow Co., No. 2025-1807, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit completely overturned the original $452 million judgment (which had already been reduced by the District Court to $59.4 million) in favor of Insulet. In its decision of June 2, 2026, in the case of Fujifilm v. Kodak, the UPC Board of Appeal provided comprehensive clarifications regarding so-called “long-arm jurisdiction”—that is, the question of whether the UPC can also rule on national patent claims outside the UPC territory (such as in the United Kingdom). In 14 guiding principles, the judges established specific procedural rules for various categories of cases. There is no automatic UPC jurisdiction over national patent claims outside the UPC territory. The Munich Regional Court has issued an arrest warrant against the managing director of Polytech Health & Aesthetics GmbH because he is alleged to have continued to exploit the Brazilian company Silimed's patent for breast implants despite a preliminary injunction. A number of IT and automotive industry associations—which are among the most frequent users of Inter Partes Reviews (IPR) at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office—have filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court, urging the Court to grant Google's certiorari petition. An attorney for a Las Vegas performer has asked a California federal judge to temporarily prohibit Taylor Swift from using “The Life of a Showgirl” as a trademark while the trademark lawsuit is pending. Swift's attorney called the lawsuit baseless. And now let's hear Ken discuss creator law with Franklin! AI, Platform Law, and the Creator Economy: What Businesses Need to Know Now Franklin Graves has spent his entire career watching digital content move through systems that most people never see. He started in marketing at a major music label right out of law school, then represented individual creators on YouTube in a pro bono capacity, then moved to the platform side at Eventbrite, and today works as Senior Product Counsel at LinkedIn, where he focuses on AI, data, and the regulatory questions that come with both. His recently published law review article, Upload Complete: An Introduction to Creator Economy Law, is the first academic paper to address the creator economy as a distinct legal field. In a recent episode of the IP Fridays podcast, he spoke with host Kenneth Suzan about responsible AI development, platform regulation, and what it actually means to own your audience in a world where the rules keep changing overnight. From Content Creator to Platform Lawyer The through-line in Graves’ career is a genuine understanding of how content moves from an idea in someone’s head to an audience on a screen. That experience, he argues, is precisely what in-house counsel needs right now. Lawyers working on AI and product development cannot afford to sit at a distance from the technology they are advising on. They need to use the tools, experience them as a creator or end user would, and understand the nuances of how a product actually operates before it reaches the public. Understanding the product first is the precondition for everything else. That philosophy translates directly into how he approaches responsible AI implementation. The landscape of AI standards is crowded: NIST frameworks, the EU AI Act, sector-specific guidance, and a growing body of industry-adopted best practices. The challenge for in-house counsel is not knowing that these standards exist. It is making them actionable for the engineering and product teams they support. Abstract principles need to become concrete controls and workflows. Graves offers one practical shortcut: most companies already have open source software review processes that involve the right stakeholders, the right sign-off levels, and the right security checks. Layering the specifics of generative AI or large language models onto those existing processes is far more efficient than building something new from scratch. A Fragmented Regulatory World The geopolitical dimension of AI regulation is something Graves thinks about constantly in his role at LinkedIn. The EU AI Act, shifting US executive orders, and country-specific approaches to data privacy have created a regulatory environment that can change the rules of the game without warning. His analogy is instructive: creators have long understood what it means to build a community on a platform they do not own. An algorithm change, a policy update, or a government ban can wipe out years of audience-building overnight. Businesses deploying AI tools globally now face a structurally similar problem. The response, for creators and for platforms alike, is to build resilience rather than rely on stability that may not last. TikTok is the clearest recent example. When the platform faced the prospect of being shut down in the United States on national security grounds, it triggered a broader conversation about platform dependence that had been building for years. Creators who had invested their entire business in one platform suddenly confronted the possibility that their audience could simply disappear. The lesson is not that platforms are bad. It is that concentration of any kind, whether it is your audience, your data pipeline, or your regulatory compliance strategy, creates fragility. What Is a Creator, Legally Speaking? One of the central contributions of Graves’ law review article is definitional. The terminology matters more than it might seem. When courts and regulators talk about creators without a shared understanding of what that word means, the resulting legal analysis tends to miss the mark. Graves draws a distinction between users who post content, creators who post with the intent to build an audience and eventually monetize it, and influencers, a subset of creators who are actively running a small business through their content. The difference is intent. A parent posting family photos on Facebook is a user. Someone building a subscription community around their professional expertise is running a business, and the legal framework that applies to them should reflect that. That distinction matters practically when it comes to liability. As more creators build their own platforms, whether through custom membership sites, open source tools like Ghost, or federated social networks, they take on obligations that previously fell to large platforms: content moderation policies, privacy notices, terms of service, and compliance with data regulations across multiple jurisdictions. A creator in Tennessee running a membership platform with subscribers in Germany is operating a global business, whether they think of themselves that way or not. Protecting Children Online: A Question Without a Clean Answer The tension between age verification and privacy is one of the more difficult problems in platform law right now. Australia, several European countries, and a growing number of US states have introduced or passed minimum age requirements for social media accounts. The technical challenge is real: verifying age online requires collecting identifying information, and collecting identifying information creates privacy risk, particularly for the young people the laws are designed to protect. Who should bear the responsibility for that verification is also unresolved. Is it the platform? The app store? The mobile operating system? Graves does not pretend there is a clean answer, but he points to the mobile layer as an underexplored option. The Apple App Store and Google Play Store already have significant leverage over which apps reach users on their devices. Whether that leverage should extend to age verification is a question that deserves more attention than it currently receives. The Right of Publicity in the Age of AI Voice cloning, digital replicas, and AI-generated synthetic media have pushed the right of publicity into territory that traditional IP law was not designed to cover. Trademark law, copyright law, and existing publicity rights each capture part of the problem but none of them covers it completely. The result, as Graves describes it, is a period of experimentation: lawyers filing trademarks on vocal sounds and phrases, states updating their publicity statutes to explicitly mention artificial intelligence, and entertainment unions negotiating over who controls a performance and any AI-generated iterations of it. Tennessee’s Elvis Act is a concrete example of the legislative response: the state updated its right of publicity law to include voice and to reference AI directly. Similar efforts are underway elsewhere. The underlying challenge is calibrating protection so that it gives creators and performers meaningful control over their likeness and voice without foreclosing the development of generative AI systems that depend on broad rights to process and learn from content. Somewhere between those two interests, a workable legal framework needs to emerge. The brand deal context may be where the issue becomes most immediately practical. When a brand partners with an influencer and the campaign involves generative AI in any form, the contract needs to address control explicitly. Who has final approval over how the influencer’s likeness or voice is used in AI-generated deliverables? What happens to those assets after the campaign ends? These are not hypothetical questions. They are contract drafting problems that any brand counsel or creator attorney should be addressing today. What Comes Next Graves is cautious about predictions, but his sense of direction is clear. The regulatory environment will continue to fragment before it converges. The right of publicity will be updated, imperfectly, in more jurisdictions. Creators will continue to move toward owning more of their infrastructure. And the lawyers who do this work best will be the ones who understand the technology well enough to translate it into practical, defensible decisions for the people they advise. Full Transcript: Ken Suzan: Thank you, Rolf. Our returning guest today is Franklin Graves. Franklin is the founder and editor of Creator Economy Law, a website and newsletter that educates creator economy professionals on the intersection of law and policy with the world of creators, brands, and platforms. Franklin also published the first law review article focused on the creator economy, Upload Complete, an introduction to creator economy law. He regularly appears across news and media outlets as a commentator and contributor with a focus on educating creators and raising awareness of all legal aspects of the creator economy. Franklin is based in Nashville, Tennessee. Ken Suzan: Franklin was invited to participate as one of the creators and creator economy professionals in the first ever White House creator economy conference. Franklin works full time as a product counsel at LinkedIn Corporation. As a member of the product and data team, he focuses on emerging issues in AI and data. Franklin previously held roles on the technology law group at HCA Healthcare, the commercial legal team at Eventbrite, and the business and legal affairs team at Naxos Music Group. Welcome back Franklin to the IP Fridays podcast. Franklin Graves: Thank you so much for having me. It is exciting to be back and reflecting over the last decade since I last joined and also the paper that I wrote that dives into this in more detail. So I really appreciate it. And yes, full disclosure, I currently work for LinkedIn, which is a subsidiary of Microsoft. I’m here in my personal capacity to talk about this, the paper I wrote before joining LinkedIn and all of that. So thank you so much for having me back. Ken Suzan: Excellent. So Franklin, since your last appearance on IP Fridays in 2017, your career has evolved significantly. You are now senior product counsel at LinkedIn focusing on AI and data. How has working inside a major tech platform changed your perspective on the legal frameworks governing digital content compared to when you were viewing it purely from the creator side? Franklin Graves: I appreciate that question because when I wrote the article, I did not work for LinkedIn. And I had been coming from a history in my career where I, right out of law school, worked for a record label like we talked about almost 10 years ago. And I was on the content creation side. I’ve represented a major distributor of classical music digitally at the time. And that was my first exposure to understanding how content was taken from the initial inception stage from creators and routed through all the various digital platforms that were at the time still evolving and even arguably still today continue to evolve. The early days of YouTube Music launching and then Apple Music launching, and then going through all the phases of high-res audio and everything that came after that. So that was an interesting perspective to start my career with. And then I went to Eventbrite, which is a ticketing platform, but was also focused on elevating event creators. They kind of took on that moniker of “Hey, we are event creators that we support.” And that was arguably my first exposure to the platform side, the tech platform side of it, because Eventbrite is a platform. And so then I evolved from there in my personal capacity, in a pro bono capacity representing individual creators across the YouTube space. And that’s what we talked about a little bit back when I first came on the podcast. Franklin Graves: Over the last decade, it’s been a chance to grow my own understanding of the creator economy. The terminology “creator economy” came around. And then now on the other side of it, having written the article and all that, and now being fully in-house at LinkedIn, I truly am experiencing a social media platform. LinkedIn is of course arguably way more than just the platform itself. There are so many different avenues to it, but it is a chance for me to understand what it is like working for a company that is operating the platform that people are distributing content on. There’s a user journey to content and all of that. So it’s definitely enhanced and given me a different perspective from a major tech platform side. And part of my role at LinkedIn is really heavily focused on understanding regulation and how that from an AI and data perspective impacts the company. And so I’ve been really leveling up my game over the last year and a half that I’ve been here, understanding mostly EU regulations, but also US regulations that are still in their infancy when it comes to AI. But really when it comes to privacy and data, those are pretty well established across the board. It’s been kind of a combination of what I learned at Eventbrite, because I went to Eventbrite when GDPR was going into effect. And so that was an eyes-wide-open moment of getting in the weeds with negotiating data processing agreements, understanding data transfers and cross-border data transfers and the like. So it’s been kind of an evolution as the laws and regulations have evolved. So has my career, so has my own understanding, so have the platforms’ responses to those laws and regulations. And I’m sure that probably resonates with a lot of your listeners who have also been growing their practice and their understanding as the laws and regulations in this realm have been evolving too. Ken Suzan: Yes, indeed. Now let’s switch gears and talk about AI. You advise on AI and data daily. As platforms integrate generative AI tools into their tech stacks, what are the most critical best practices in-house counsel should be adopting right now to embed responsible AI principles into product development? Franklin Graves: So as an attorney, one of my key roles is to understand the technology. Even representing creators and working for creator platforms, that’s something I’m constantly trying to do: put myself in the shoes of being a creator. And I think I talked about this last time I was on, but I come from a background where I was working for a major label doing marketing, video editing, social media work. And I was creating content. I understood the whole life cycle from the inception point of an idea to execution and then to the final delivery and distribution of that content to an audience within a major music label. And so part of that is the same thing that I think attorneys, especially in-house, should be doing: using the tools that the product and engineering teams are either developing in-house or partnering with third parties to develop, or a combination of the two. Using them, understanding them, using them as a creator would, using them as an end user or a client or customer would. And making sure that if you understand the product and understand the nuances of how it operates, and being a part of the iterations of that internally before it fully ramps, that really gives you a chance to understand: okay, we have a lot of responsible AI principles and standards and protocols that are in existence right now, whether it’s NIST, whether it’s based on the EU AI Act or anything and everything in between. It’s understanding how to apply those and bring those into a product and an engineering environment in a way that is practical and actionable for the people that you’re supporting, the stakeholders you’re supporting. So I think one of the critical best practices is, number one, understand the product or features that you’re supporting. Franklin Graves: And then understand how you as an attorney can use your expertise and understanding of responsible AI practices, whether it’s a regulatory standard or an industry-adopted standard or a hybrid of the two, to leverage those and implement those, break those down and make them into actionable controls and processes and flows that work within your existing infrastructure. That’s a lot of high-level talk, but that’s the general idea. One concrete example we talk about frequently is with open source AI. If you’re working with a product team or an engineering team that is taking an off-the-shelf open source model and bringing that in-house, a lot of times companies have pre-existing open source processes that cover the use of open source software or code. Piggyback on that. That’s the easiest quick win for attorneys: leveraging your existing open source processes to just build on top of that the AI flavor and layering. It’s not very much that you have to do, but the underlying process of the key stakeholders that need to be involved in the review, whether it’s security, whether it’s executive sign-off if it gets to that point, even export control considerations should already be part of your existing open source software process. So layering in on those existing processes the specifics of generative AI or large language models that you’re trying to bring in is a great way to put this into practice. Ken Suzan: Now looking at the geopolitical landscape that we currently have, we have the EU AI Act setting strict standards and shifting US executive orders. How should platforms and brands prepare for this fragmented regulatory environment when deploying AI tools to a global user base? Franklin Graves: It’s a great question. It’s something that is still evolving, I think is fair to say. I would equate it, as I do in the paper that I wrote, to how creators and arguably brands don’t own the platforms that they’re building their communities on. That spawned this concept of de-platforming or going into building your own platform, a decentralized platform of sorts, and owning your community. That gives you that control and takes away the level of instability that can come for creators trying to build a business on a platform they don’t own, they don’t control when certain updates happen, when algorithms change, when tools and functionalities either become available or go away completely. So it’s very similar to what we’ve been experiencing in a regulatory environment where we have geopolitical complexities, for lack of a better term, that can overnight seemingly disrupt the way in which a platform or even a multinational brand is able to connect and reach an audience or continue to leverage the user base that they’ve built. I think TikTok is a great example of that, where it became a national security concern and suddenly it was facing an executive order that required it to be effectively disabled in the US or completely owned and operated by a US entity. All the mechanics and technicalities of whether it’s actually possible and still have a global platform with a global user base is a whole different discussion. But that’s an example of very similar considerations that are now not just a discussion point at the creator level or the individual brand level, but also in a much broader context at a platform level as well. Ken Suzan: Franklin, let’s now shift gears and talk about your article. In your recently published journal article, Upload Complete, which we will have linked in our show notes, you advocate for a shift in terminology from internet creator law, a term used during our first podcast almost a decade ago, to creator economy law. Why is this distinction important and how does it change the way legal practitioners should view the ecosystem of creators, brands, and platforms? Franklin Graves: Oh yes, this is part of the reason why I wanted to write the article: to lay this foundation of understanding. Because at the time I’d written the article, the term creator economy and creator had really not appeared but for maybe once in an actual court decision. And it was kind of focused on influencers and this concept, and it was just not getting it right. And so it was also, as you mentioned, when we first spoke I was even using the term internet creators. And I think that was something that was common at the time. The “internet” portion as a qualifier has since dropped off. And now for purposes of the creator economy, the term creators refers to individuals, it can be small businesses, which is what we’ve seen from a regulatory standpoint, how these small businesses are being impacted by regulations. But essentially creators in the article I pin in the context of intent. What is the intent behind the person or the small business that is posting content, trying to build a community and form a community in a virtual environment? And then that can even spill over into real physical world environments. And so the intent is kind of what I look at. Franklin Graves: And I have a chart in the article that has a diagram showcasing the overlap of what I refer to as “users generating content.” It’s a play on the concept of user-generated content, UGC. Users generating content is that large bucket of anyone posting on a platform of some kind. And within that large bucket, that large circle, are smaller subsets. You have creators, you have brands. Those are really the two buckets you can put people into. Otherwise it’s like your grandmother or your parents posting content on Facebook or Instagram, and those are everyday users of a platform. The distinction to get into that subcategory of being a creator more so has been analyzing the intent behind the posting. Are you posting content to build an audience, to build a community, to eventually have a chance to monetize the following that you’re bringing in or sell services or something like that? Brands are posting for that reason. Creators are maybe posting for that same reason. But even within the creator category, there’s a subcategory of influencers that are trying to sell something, that are trying to build more than just an awareness of who they are, their influence. They are trying to do brand deals, partnership deals, upsells and all that, and start an actual small business aside from just the content itself that they’re creating. So that’s kind of the distinctions that I make in the paper. And that’s why it’s important to understand and lay that foundation, that anyone can post content online, but the intent, the why behind their posting that content, really does ultimately matter, especially when you’re looking at it from a court case or from a regulatory standpoint. Ken Suzan: Now, Franklin, we’re seeing unprecedented geopolitical activity around platform ownership. For example, the US legislation targeting TikTok and Brazil’s recent temporary ban of X. How do these macro-level battles impact the day-to-day livelihood of creators? And how can they legally and operationally protect themselves? Franklin Graves: So the shift that we’re seeing, and I alluded to this earlier in our conversation, is this concept of Web 3. And that term may or may not be really popular anymore, but that’s essentially what we’re looking at: a shift into a federated, decentralized operation of a platform. So instead of one owner, one company, one entity owning and operating the platform, it’s decentralized. Anyone can start up a server, and it’s interoperable, meaning anyone can plug and play and connect to that larger network. And it creates this unified social network experience. Within each operating node of that network, there can be your own decisions around content moderation, your own decisions around the hosting providers you use, where you’re operating out of, the terms and conditions that apply to that. But the flip side is that instead of creators posting and sharing in a closed environment run and controlled by a singular entity, you’re now experiencing a peer-to-peer type operation where your experience can change based on which server, which node, which user you’re engaging with. You might have content that’s acceptable in one area but not acceptable in another, and maybe it just doesn’t even show up in that other area. Franklin Graves: But from a liability standpoint, as creators start to build their own networks and communities, even outside of a concept like the fediverse, it’s even down to creators building their own communities through online courses, subscription membership-based platforms that they run on their own website. There’s open source software out there, even something called Ghost, where you have memberships. And that is a creator or a small business in the creator economy that is now taking on the obligations that would typically fall upon a platform. They need to take into consideration terms and conditions, privacy policies, legal aspects, and regulatory considerations for running a platform, especially in a global world. So it’s a lot of liability that then shifts over to those small businesses and even brands sometimes that are doing the same thing. Whether it is something as simple or complex as content moderation or all the way up to monetizing an audience, this new world where creators can spin up and run a platform all dovetails back to the concept of creators not feeling like they have control in reaching the audience and the community that they’re building on an individual platform. And so this really became more mainstream conversation with TikTok and the issues around it potentially being shut down in the US. That was kind of the mindset shift and eyes opening for many creators, especially within the influencer subset, of realizing: we need to make sure that we have a way to reach the audience we’ve built if the individual platform that we’ve committed to over the last year or three years or so is no longer available. We need a way to continue that relationship outside of that one platform controlling it. Ken Suzan: Franklin, we have a few minutes left and a number of topics. So I’m going to switch gears and talk about a few issues. First, a major emerging topic in your paper is the evolution of protecting kids online. With state-level age-gating laws like the CAADCA and the recent FTC updates to COPPA, how should platforms navigate the significant tension between strict age verification mandates and the privacy and First Amendment rights of their users? Franklin Graves: Man, that is a whole discussion to unravel. It is a consideration that we’re seeing happen again, going back to the geopolitical nature of everything. Countries like Australia and certain countries in Europe and now even individual states in the US are trying to look at ways, and some of them have already put into place minimum age requirements before you can even sign up for an account with a social media platform. One of the things I’d just highlight quickly here is that one of the tensions is around how you verify someone’s age online and still maintain the ability to be at least pseudonymous. How do you still have a level of privacy, autonomy, and protection when it comes to having to provide something like a driver’s license or have parental consent tied and connected to an account managed by a parent in a situation where maybe it’s not appropriate or not beneficial to the child in that manner? But then maybe there are counterbalancing factors that outweigh that. All of that comes down to the technicalities of how it’s actually implemented and maintaining the sense of openness and freedom that we’ve had on the internet to date. And then the other element there is, since a lot of the internet that we think of today is more so through mobile applications, is it something that the mobile operating system providers and app store providers should be thinking about? So whether that’s the Google Play Store or the Apple App Store, where does that initial age verification need to fall? Is it at the platform level? Is it the app store or mobile device management level or something else? Yeah, there’s a lot to discuss there. And a lot of the issues we’re seeing with how the internet is changing in terms of being able to browse a website without disclosing personal information that might not have been required before is largely stemming from a focus on protecting children online. Ken Suzan: It sounds like, Franklin, we could have another episode covering lots of issues connected with that one topic alone. Franklin Graves: I would absolutely agree with that. There’s a lot going on there. And again, it’s different across the world. And so I know you all have a global listener base. And so there’s a lot of nuances to that whole discussion too, that are worth exploring. Ken Suzan: Last question for today’s episode is regarding the right of publicity. With the explosion of AI-generated synthetic media, digital replicas, and voice cloning, the right of publicity is taking center stage. What are the biggest legal risks for brands partnering with influencers right now? And how can creators protect their most valuable asset, their likeness? Franklin Graves: That’s a great question. I think we’re seeing kind of a throwing-spaghetti-against-the-wall-to-see-what-sticks approach right now by a lot of different parties, whether it’s trademark attorneys, whether it’s general entertainment attorneys or whoever. For example, we’ve seen Taylor Swift filing trademarks to protect certain sounds of her voice and phrasing that she uses. It’s a difficult area because in the realm of generative AI with deep fakes and virtual avatars, that is where it gets tricky, because traditional IP laws are just not able to fully cover that spectrum. It’s a piecemeal approach, but even then it doesn’t fully cover it. So for example, I’m based in Tennessee and a couple of years ago we had the Elvis Act that updated our right of publicity law to add voice and to explicitly reference artificial intelligence. And so that’s the kind of effort we’re probably going to continue to see: efforts to develop some framework around protecting what is essentially a privacy right, in a manner that doesn’t restrict generative AI systems from continuing to develop and operate the way they’re operating now, while layering in those protections so that in the US at least a First Amendment right doesn’t necessarily get squashed, and those traditional well-recognized efforts to not overregulate a technology in its early stages are respected. Franklin Graves: And so I think a lot of what we’re seeing is just a need to update laws. The SAG-AFTRA debate and the strikes that happened around maintaining control of your performance and any iterations of that, or building upon that by a media company that might come later, it’s all on the table right now and still being discussed, still being worked out. I think in the short run, a lot of times if it’s in a brand deal, the key question is: if you are using generative AI to enhance in some way the final deliverable for the campaign, who has control over that? Who has final say and sign-off on how that likeness or that digital replica or that person’s voice is represented? And even outside of the brand space, we’ve seen actors like James Earl Jones signing over certain aspects like their voice and allowing it to continue to be used in these manners powered by generative AI as Darth Vader. And I think I saw something that Boy George was even starting up an AI company that allows musicians, the original recording artist, to rerecord new versions of their masters so that they don’t miss out on that revenue. It’s powered by generative AI, by taking their voice now, which is significantly different than it was back in the 80s, and using generative AI to make it sound closer to the original, but all based on their current performance. So I think it’s still an evolving area. And what’s interesting too is on the platform side, we’re seeing the early stages of platforms like Google starting to acknowledge and rely on the license grant contained in their terms of service for YouTube, which grants them broad rights to use the content to run their platform. So all that to be said, it’s still early stages. I’m very interested to see where we go from here in the future, especially from a global perspective as well. Ken Suzan: Franklin, I could spend hours talking to you about this. You’re such a knowledgeable person on these topics. Maybe in a few years, will we connect again and talk further on AI and all the things that are yet to be developed? Franklin Graves: Thank you. Yeah, it doesn’t have to be another decade. Maybe we can cut it to half a decade, given the pace at which technology is going now. Ken Suzan: Sounds good, Franklin. Thanks again for being on the IP Fridays podcast.

Most mineral owners know they "own mineral rights" — but what does that actually mean? Did you know that property ownership isn't a single thing; it's a collection of separate, stackable, and separable rights that attorneys and landmen refer to as the "bundle of sticks." In this episode, we break down everything you need to know about the different types of property rights — from the broad concept of who owns what on the surface to a detailed look at the five distinct rights that make up the mineral estate itself. If you've ever wondered why you're receiving a royalty check but didn't sign a lease, why you can sell your interest while your cousin holds onto theirs, or what exactly an NPRI owner does and doesn't get to do — this episode covers it all. Whether you've just inherited minerals or have been a mineral owner for years, understanding which "sticks" are in your bundle is foundational to making smart decisions about your property. As always the links to the resources mentioned in this episode can be found in the show notes at mineralrightspodcast.com.

What happens when one man refuses to surrender to government overreach? Fresh off his Not Guilty verdict, Daniel Banyai joins Michael Jaco alongside Kevin Hoyt to discuss Daniel's courtroom victory after being charged with assaulting an officer while resisting arrest. Together, they break down the trial, the evidence presented, and why Daniel believes his case exposed deep corruption within local government in Vermont. Daniel shares the years-long battle he has faced, the personal cost of standing on principle, and how his victory represents much more than a legal win—it is a reminder that ordinary Americans can peacefully stand up for their constitutional rights and prevail. Kevin Hoyt adds insight into the legal process, government accountability, and why victories like this are important for protecting due process, property rights, and individual freedoms across the country. Michael, Daniel, and Kevin also discuss the importance of courage, perseverance, and refusing to be intimidated by corruption. Their message is clear: when people educate themselves, stand together, and peacefully defend their rights, meaningful change is possible. Congratulations to our friend Daniel Banyai on his Not Guilty verdict. Daniel and Kevin continue to inspire people across America to stand firm, know their rights, and never give up in the pursuit of justice.

Maxwell Frost blasts billionaire capture of AI and space, Jenna's panel exposes war profiteering, and GOP SNAP cuts throw hundreds of thousands of kids into hunger.Subscribe to our Newsletter:https://politicsdoneright.com/newsletterPurchase our Books: As I See It: https://amzn.to/3XpvW5o How To Make AmericaUtopia: https://amzn.to/3VKVFnG It's Worth It: https://amzn.to/3VFByXP Lose Weight And BeFit Now: https://amzn.to/3xiQK3K Tribulations of anAfro-Latino Caribbean man: https://amzn.to/4c09rbE

As the Supreme Court term nears its end, the justices are releasing some of the most highly anticipated decisions. In this excerpt from the Insider podcast, Supreme Court expert Steve Vladeck joins Preet Bharara and Joyce Vance to discuss Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections, a case with implications for religious freedoms and the ability of ordinary Americans to vindicate their rights in court. Vladeck is also a professor at Georgetown University Law School and the author of the Substack newsletter One First. In the full episode, they cover U.S. v. Hemani, a gun possession case, and Kian v. Florida, a case about six-person juries. Plus, which upcoming decisions should we be paying the most attention to? To support the show and gain access to full Insider episodes, become a member. For a limited time, get 25% off an annual membership on Substack: staytuned.substack.com/250. CAFE Insiders click HERE to listen to the full analysis.  Subscribe to our YouTube channel. This podcast is brought to you by CAFE and Vox Media Podcast Network.  Executive Producer: Tamara Sepper; Supervising Producer: Jake Kaplan; Associate Producer: Claudia Hernández; Senior Audio Producer: Matthew Billy; CAFE Team: Celine Rohr, Nat Weiner, Jennifer Indig, and Liana Greenway. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

HOUR 4: The courts agree...they violated his rights. But, he can't sue. full 2152 Tue, 23 Jun 2026 22:00:00 +0000 Zk12r0b8fSAWB0yVa1r2h8Ny7oJdaR0f news The Dana & Parks Podcast news HOUR 4: The courts agree...they violated his rights. But, he can't sue. You wanted it... Now here it is! Listen to each hour of the Dana & Parks Show whenever and wherever you want! © 2025 Audacy, Inc. News https://player.amperwav

Got a new build that's not hitting the rent you expected? Or are you looking for a resource that has all the latest updates from the Renters' Rights Act? This week's episode of Ask Rob & Rob has you covered. (00:46) Dan's new build is sitting empty with rents well below his projections. He has a few solutions to this, but what's the best approach? Rob B explains why the worst thing he can do right now is something drastic. (06:59) Holly's wondering when How to Be a Landlord will be edited to cover the Renters' Rights Act? Rob D reveals the fully revised second edition is already out, covering the new tenancy type, rent increases, pets, and what to do when things go wrong. Links mentioned: How to Be a Landlord (Second Edition) Enjoy the show? Leave us a review on Apple Podcasts - it really helps others find us! Sign up for our free weekly newsletter, Property Pulse Got a question? Send it in here Find out more about Property Hub Invest

This week on This Way Out: in the second installment of our special Pride Month collaboration with Los Angeles' Get Lit – Words Ignite, young poets respond to the voices of James Baldwin and Urvashi Vaid with original spoken-word performances that bridge generations of LGBTQ history, literature, and activism. Plus, a Rainbow Rewind featuring Patricia Nell Warren and Harvey Fierstein, and in Newswrap: the Netherlands' ban on conversion therapy, a Trump administration lawsuit targeting the world's leading transgender health organization, cuts to LGBTQ veterans' health programs, Niger's expanding crackdown on LGBTQ people, and an openly gay referee making FIFA World Cup history. Featured speakers:, James Baldwin, Brian Sonia-Wallace, Urvashi Vaid, Allison Leiva-Reyes and Alina Sadibekova Credits: Associate Producer/Host Lucia Chappelle, Producer Brian DeShazor, News writer Jeb Backe, feature producer Brian DeShazor, NewsWrap reporters, Ava Davis and Nico Raquel, music by Raye and Kim Wilson

The Guilty Feminist 488. Migrant Rights and the Asylum Experience. Presented by Deborah Frances-White and Jessica Fostekew with guests Leyla Williams, Steasy Castro and Juliet Stevenson. Recorded 12 June 2026 at West London Welcome. Released 22 June. The Guilty Feminist theme composed by Mark Hodge. Get Deborah's new book with 30% off using the code SIXCONVERSATIONSPOD https://store.virago.co.uk/products/six-conversations-were-scared-to-have More about Deborah Frances-White https://deborahfrances-white.com https://www.instagram.com/dfdubz https://www.virago.co.uk/titles/deborah-frances-white/six-conversations-were-scared-to-have/9780349015811 https://www.virago.co.uk/titles/deborah-frances-white/the-guilty-feminist/9780349010120 More about Jessica Fostekew https://www.instagram.com/jessicafostekew https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUAduMto_xc More about West London Welcome https://www.instagram.com/westlondonwelcome https://www.westlondonwelcome.com https://refugeeweek.org.uk For more information about this and other episodes… visit https://www.guiltyfeminist.com tweet us https://www.twitter.com/guiltfempod like our Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/guiltyfeminist check out our Instagram https://www.instagram.com/theguiltyfeminist or join our mailing list http://www.eepurl.com/bRfSPT More Big Speeches workshops now available https://guiltyfeminist.com/big-speeches/ Come to a live show Guilty Feminist at Ventnor Fringe. https://purchase.vfringe.co.uk/EventAvailability?EventId=37801 Edinburgh Preview Showcase. https://sohotheatre.com/events/the-guilty-feminist-edinburgh-preview-showcase Edinburgh Fringe. https://tickets.gildedballoon.co.uk/event/14:6708/ Thank you to our amazing Patreon supporters. To support the podcast yourself, go to https://www.patreon.com/guiltyfeminist You can also get an ad-free version of the podcast via Apple Podcasts. The Guilty Feminist is part of the AudioPlus Network. If you'd like to work with us, please get in touch at hello@weareaudioplus.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Send us Fan MailIn this episode of Impact Without Limits, Brian and Dale continue their America 250 series by exploring a foundational question: Is America a democracy or a constitutional republic? They unpack the differences between the two, discuss the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, and examine how biblical principles influenced the structure of American government.The conversation also takes a practical look at the Bill of Rights, breaking down the first ten amendments and the freedoms they protect. From freedom of speech and religion to due process and states' rights, this episode offers a timely reminder of the liberties many Americans enjoy—and why understanding the Constitution is essential to preserving them.Episode Highlights: Is the American form of government a democracy?Why America's leaders rejected pure democracy.The principles behind the Constitution and Bill of Rights.Why every American should read the Constitution.Links Mentioned in Episode/Find More on ForeverLawn:www.foreverlawn.comImpact Without Limits Instagram: @impact_withoutlimitsForeverLawn's Instagram: @foreverlawnincGet Grass Without Limits HereVisit our show notes page HERESubscribe to Our Newsletter HEREDale's Instagram: @dalekarmieBrian's Instagram: @bkarmieFind Our Shorts on the ForeverLawn YouTube ChannelVisit the American Battlefield Trust WebsiteVisit the White House Freedom 250 WebsiteJD Vance addresses prayer in public schoolsThis show has been produced by Adkins Media Co.

What an attorney who reviews NIL deals sees in the contracts, and what college athletes may be signing away.Philip Sheng is an attorney at Venable LLP, a national firm of roughly 900 lawyers, where he works in the intellectual property group and the sports law practice. His focus is college NIL, the right of publicity, and college eligibility. Venable also advised Taylor Swift through her fight to control her music and re-record her catalog. Sheng notes that was the firm's matter rather than his own, but the throughline is the same question he now works on in college sports: who owns a person's name, image, and likeness, and what they give up when they sign.This is the on-the-ground legal view of NIL. For the full breakdown of how the system works, start with The NIL Hub, NIL Rules in 2026, and NIL Pros and Cons. This episode is narrower. It is what a practicing attorney sees inside the deals themselves.Eric Kasimov talks with Sheng about NIL as both a legal and an athlete-centered issue. They get into whether NIL is really athlete compensation, intellectual property, or both, and why the issue was known as the right of publicity long before college sports made it a household term. Sheng has lived the landscape from several sides. He played tennis at Stanford, competed as an ATP-ranked professional, and now has children navigating college athletics, including Division I basketball and tennis.TopicsNIL as intellectual property and the right of publicityThe College Sports Commission and how it reviews NIL dealsThe Nebraska and PlayFly case, and why the contracts were the problemWhy even a small NIL deal needs its rights language reviewedHow brands can work with role players, not only star athletesRoster cuts in non-revenue sports like tennis and swimmingHigh school NIL, state-by-state rules, and protecting minorsSports betting, college students, and the value of staying in schoolChapters in This Episode00:00 Philip Sheng's background in law, tennis, and college sports00:36 Venable LLP, intellectual property, NIL, and sports law02:11 NIL as right of publicity03:15 Stanford, conference realignment, and athlete travel04:13 The burden on student-athletes06:29 What college sports used to be for07:00 Money, transfers, and the changing athlete experience09:20 NIL checks, taxes, and athlete education09:36 Bad agents and why guidance matters12:25 Has NIL gone too far?13:00 Congress, courts, media, fans, and pressure to change16:11 Money, rosters, and the college experience19:05 What the College Sports Commission does20:00 Fair market value, valid business purpose, and NIL deal review20:55 Nebraska, PlayFly, and unclear NIL contracts22:39 Why the Nebraska case was not just bad paperwork23:40 Why other schools are watching25:00 Lawyers, arbitration costs, and legal representation26:18 Sheng's view of the CSC and NCAA enforcement28:46 College football playoff expansion and media money31:00 What happens if schools sell marquee games differently32:43 Why championships still matter34:50 Sheng's work with non-revenue sports and NIL contracts36:08 Why brands should look beyond star athletes38:47 Are NIL contracts becoming standardized?39:45 Why athletes need contract review40:38 Rights, music, Taylor Swift, and long-term ownership42:02 College tennis, roster cuts, and non-revenue sports44:29 International athletes and college tennis47:25 Similar issues in soccer and goalkeeper recruiting48:00 High school NIL and state-by-state rules49:37 Youth sports, money, and family pressure50:29 Sports betting, college students, and addiction risk52:00 Athlete data, betting markets, and protection54:00 The cost and value of college55:00 Why athletes should not discount the college experience57:25 Athletic fees, non-athletes, and campus tension58:57 Burnout, injuries, and changing paths59:28 Where to find Philip ShengAbout Philip ShengPhilip Sheng is an attorney at Venable LLP, where he works in the firm's intellectual property group and sports law practice. His work includes NIL, the right of publicity, college eligibility, NCAA eligibility, and athlete-related legal issues. He has practiced law for 15 years.He is also a former Stanford tennis player and a former ATP-ranked professional. That background gives him a view of college sports from both sides, as a former athlete and as an attorney working in NIL and intellectual property. He also brings a parent's perspective, with children competing in Division I basketball and tennis. The combination shapes how he thinks about NIL, athlete contracts, non-revenue sports, and the value of the college experience.Connect with Philip Sheng:X | LinkedIn | Venable LLPConnect with Eric and SportsEpreneur:LinkedIn | X | SportsEpreneur on LinkedIn | SportsEpreneur on XRelated SportsEpreneur NIL ContentThe NIL HubNIL Pros and Cons | The College Game Is Changed ForeverWhat the Protect College Sports Act Reveals About Athlete RepresentationDid You Know You're Paying for College Sports?

"Bitcoin is a rights-protection entity." Tomer Strolight returns for his ninth visit — and reads four of his own essays start to finish, with conversation in between: Bitcoin Is More, Living With AI, AI Built to Survive, and This Is Not the End. We discuss why Bitcoin isn't a price but a superstate no government on earth can reach — even as Iran floats a Bitcoin toll in the middle of a war — why self-custody is the whole point, and how inflation's slow squeeze is finally being felt by everyone. Then it turns: three short stories about living with AI, and what we surrender when we let a machine do our thinking for us. No host intro, no warm-up. We open cold, on Tomer's voice. Subscribe so you never miss an episode.

Matt opens the show with a Father's Day recap, a local car show, and a reminder that some classic American cars still turn heads decades later. He then dives into growing concerns around Strategy's Bitcoin financing model, explaining why the company's preferred stock performance matters for its ability to continue accumulating Bitcoin and supporting the broader treasury-company narrative.The episode also explores the escalating battle over stablecoin regulation, from the Bank of England's new framework to the ongoing fight between federal and state oversight in the United States. Matt discusses the tension between state-level competition and national regulatory consistency, while examining new compliance requirements being proposed for stablecoin issuers.Finally, Matt covers the latest crypto security breaches, including exploits affecting Taiko and the JaredFromSubway.eth MEV bot, highlights a Japanese pension fund allocating capital to crypto, and reflects on how the industry's biggest debate may no longer be about Bitcoin itself, but about who controls the financial rails being built around stablecoins and digital assets.Happy Hodling, Everyone. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

TakeawaysToby Doeden opposes any attempt to repeal HB 1052 and has promised the fastest veto in South Dakota history if a repeal ever reaches his desk as governor.On the question of a compromise threshold for eminent domain projects, Doeden is firm: when it comes to God-given constitutional rights, there is no wiggle room and no compromise.Doeden believes true economic development in South Dakota doesn't require multi-billion dollar subsidized projects. It comes from supporting local entrepreneurs, small businesses, farmers, and ranchers.Coming off a first-place finish in the June 2nd Republican primary with 31% of the vote in a four-way race, Toby Doeden sits down with Amanda Radke for a direct, issue-focused conversation on the property rights topics South Dakota landowners care about most.This is Part 1 of American Land and Legacy's two-part exclusive interview series ahead of the July 28th runoff election, where Doeden will face Interim Governor Larry Rhoden. With thousands of landowners reaching out to Amanda asking who to support, she took the question straight to the candidates themselves.The conversation covers the full range of property rights issues at stake in this race: the legacy of SB 201 and the overwhelming voter rejection of RL 21, the landmark HB 1052 that eliminated eminent domain for CO2 pipelines, the ongoing debate over data centers and tax exemptions, and how a Doeden administration would respond to federal pressure to expand eminent domain for energy infrastructure.Doeden is clear on his foundational position: every decision he makes as governor will be rooted in protecting God-given constitutional rights, and he will mirror the will of the people, not the will of lobbyists and big donors. He points to the 59% voter rejection of RL 21 across 65 of 66 counties as proof of where South Dakotans stand, and argues that the legislature's decision to push SB 201 through anyway was a direct failure to represent the people.He also addresses the economy, rural communities, and what he sees as the real differences between himself and his runoff opponent, including a 38% increase in state spending, rising crime, doubled property taxes, and a sales tax increase coming in 2027.Key Topics CoveredThe SB 201 / RL 21 Landowner Bill of Rights: what went wrong and how a Doeden administration would honor the will of South Dakota votersHB 1052 and eminent domain for CO2 pipelines: Doeden's commitment to protecting and defending this nation-leading legislationWhether a compromise threshold for pipeline projects is on the table (short answer: no)The data center debate: the 50-year tax exemption attempt versus the Data Center Bill of Rights for Citizens passed by Senator Carr and Speaker HansenPresident Trump's executive orders expanding eminent domain for energy infrastructure and how Doeden would balance federal direction with South Dakota's states' rightsWhat economic development actually looks like for South Dakota, and why it doesn't require big subsidized projectsThe challenges facing rural communities, small farms, and ranches, and who Doeden would bring to the table to address themHow Doeden's primary results reflect a statewide demand for change, and what he sees as the key differences between his vision and Larry Rhoden's recordReuniting the Republican Party after a competitive four-way primary and what that means going into the runoffhttps://www.americanlandandlegacy.org/

TakeawaysGovernor Rhoden signed HB 1052 and gave a direct, unambiguous answer when asked if he would uphold it against any attempt to amend or repeal it in the upcoming legislative session: yes.Rhoden does not support special tax exemptions or deals for data centers, but he did sign the Data Center Bill of Rights for Citizens carried by Senator Carr and Speaker Hansen, which requires data centers to prove they won't negatively impact South Dakota's water supply or electricity rates.Rhoden points to a decades-long record on property rights, including leading the charge after the 2005 Kelo v. New London Supreme Court decision, carrying the Open Fields Doctrine bill, and resolving the non-meandered bodies of water issue after 20 years of legal limbo.In Part 2 of American Land and Legacy's exclusive gubernatorial candidate interview series, Amanda Radke sits down with South Dakota Governor Larry Rhoden ahead of the July 28th runoff election.With the same questions put to both candidates, this conversation gives landowners a direct side-by-side look at where each man stands on the property rights issues that matter most to South Dakota's farmers, ranchers, and rural communities.Rhoden speaks to his record as a lifelong West River rancher and his history of working on property rights legislation going back two decades, including model legislation he carried in the wake of the Kelo v. New London decision, the Open Fields Doctrine bill he got across the finish line as lieutenant governor, and the resolution of the non-meandered bodies of water issue that had been in limbo for 20 years.On the most pressing current questions, Rhoden is direct: he signed HB 1052, he wouldn't hesitate to do it again, and he will veto any attempt to weaken or repeal it. He does not support special tax exemptions for data centers, though he's open to using existing incentive structures if facilities comply with the rules laid out in the Data Center Bill of Rights he signed. And on the question of federal pressure to expand eminent domain for energy infrastructure, he expresses confidence in the working relationship his administration has built with the Trump team while maintaining that South Dakota's own statutes already offer stronger protections than any other state in the union.The conversation also covers SB 201's complicated legacy, the local control concerns in Section 4 of that bill, the case for and against a constitutional amendment on eminent domain, rural broadband investment, international trade missions, and what Rhoden sees as the key differences between himself and Toby Doeden heading into the runoff.Key Topics CoveredHB 1052 and the compromise threshold discussion during negotiations: why it didn't get support and what Rhoden did when the bill reached his deskData centers: his opposition to special tax exemptions, his support for the Data Center Bill of Rights for Citizens, and how he views existing incentive structuresPresident Trump's executive orders on data centers and expanded eminent domain for energy infrastructure, and how Rhoden plans to navigate federal pressure while protecting South Dakota landownersHis decades-long property rights record: Kelo v. New London model legislation, the Open Fields Doctrine bill, and the non-meandered bodies of water resolutionSB 201 and RL 21: Rhoden's perspective on what the bill actually did, why the referendum process surprised him, and how Summit Carbon's loss of trust with landowners shaped the outcomeSection 4 of SB 201 and the local control concerns around PUC authority versus county and township ordinance-making powerhttps://www.americanlandandlegacy.org/

Historian Clay Jenkinson and John Williams look at the Bill of Rights and discuss the strengths, weaknesses and challenges presented by this 235 year-old document. On this installment, Clay and John examine the Seventh Amendment.

In this Federalist Society America 250 series, experts analyze modern legal and policy debates through the lens of the Founding generation. The Founders gave us the tools to answer many contemporary questions; join us as we explore those answers.Innovation is at the heart of the American economy, fueled by a patent system that represented a deliberate radical break from the British model. Under English practice, the Crown granted patents as royal favors, monopolies awarded at the sovereign's pleasure, with no requirement of genuine novelty or utility. The Framers rejected this. They believed that intellectual property rights should both reward ingenuity and advance society. By drawing Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 almost verbatim from the South Carolina Constitution, they tied the grant of patents to the mandate to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts."This system democratized invention, where anyone could apply for a patent, and set the stage for centuries of American innovative dominance. The U.S. model has largely been adopted globally.As we approach the Semiquincentennial, join our panel to explore the inventive spirit unleashed after the Founding. How did the Constitution break with British common law? Why did the Framers embed IP rights in the Constitution itself rather than the Bill of Rights? What does it mean that the provision passed without recorded controversy? And how healthy are those rights today?Featuring:Prof. Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityProf. David S. Olson, Associate Professor, Boston College Law SchoolProf. Zvi Rosen, Associate Professor, UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law(Moderator) Hon. John D. Love, Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas

In this Federalist Society America 250 series, experts analyze modern legal and policy debates through the lens of the Founding generation. The Founders gave us the tools to answer many contemporary questions; join us as we explore those answers.Innovation is at the heart of the American economy, fueled by a patent system that represented a deliberate radical break from the British model. Under English practice, the Crown granted patents as royal favors, monopolies awarded at the sovereign's pleasure, with no requirement of genuine novelty or utility. The Framers rejected this. They believed that intellectual property rights should both reward ingenuity and advance society. By drawing Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 almost verbatim from the South Carolina Constitution, they tied the grant of patents to the mandate to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts."This system democratized invention, where anyone could apply for a patent, and set the stage for centuries of American innovative dominance. The U.S. model has largely been adopted globally.As we approach the Semiquincentennial, join our panel to explore the inventive spirit unleashed after the Founding. How did the Constitution break with British common law? Why did the Framers embed IP rights in the Constitution itself rather than the Bill of Rights? What does it mean that the provision passed without recorded controversy? And how healthy are those rights today?Featuring:Prof. Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason UniversityProf. David S. Olson, Associate Professor, Boston College Law SchoolProf. Zvi Rosen, Associate Professor, UNH Franklin Pierce School of Law(Moderator) Hon. John D. Love, Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas

Here are the news stories we covered in thi weeks show: Macky: Border Force secures its largest ever cannabis seizure - GOV.UK  Smee: Legalized Cannabis Does Not Increase Consumption - Neuroscience News  Dr.Margaret:  Scientists found a cannabis compound that relieves pain without the high | ScienceDaily  John: Supreme Court rules government can't restrict gun rights for casual drug use This week we discuss the UK's largest-ever cannabis seizure, examining what it means for enforcement efforts and whether major busts like this have any lasting impact on the cannabis market. We also look at new research suggesting that cannabis legalisation does not lead to increased consumption rates, adding another piece of evidence to an increasingly debated topic. Dr. Margaret brings exciting medical news as researchers identify a cannabis-derived compound that may provide pain relief without the intoxicating effects typically associated with THC, potentially opening the door to new treatment options. Meanwhile, John covers a significant Supreme Court ruling in the United States involving constitutional rights, drug use, and the limits of government restrictions. Another packed episode featuring cannabis science, policy, law, and the stories making headlines around the world.

Historian Clay Jenkinson and John Williams look at the Bill of Rights and discuss the strengths, weaknesses and challenges presented by this 235 year-old document. On this installment, Clay and John examine the Seventh Amendment.

This week's speakers:Jill Ovens - NZWhat is a Woman Bill and the submission process?Róisín Michaux - Belgium/IrelandGetting Fired by the EU Commission ♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀Enjoying our webinars? If you are a position to make a one-off or recurring donation to support our work, you can find out how to do so (and see our financial reports) at https://www.womensdeclaration.com/en/donate/ - thank-you!♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀♀Women's Declaration International (#WDI) Feminist Question Time is a weekly online webinar (Saturdays 3-4.30pm UK time). It is attended by a global feminist and activist audience of between 200-300. The main focus is how gender ideology is harming the rights of women and girls. See upcoming speakers and register to attend at https://bit.ly/registerFQT. There is also a monthly AUS/NZ FQT, on the last Saturday of the month at 7pm (Canberra, Melbourne, Sydney)/9pm (NZ). Register to attend at https://bit.ly/registerFQTAUSNZ.On Sundays (10am UK time), our webinar series, Radical Feminist Perspectives, offers a chance to hear leading feminists discuss radical feminist theory and politics. Register at https://bit.ly/registerRFP.Attendance of our live webinars is women-only; men are welcome to watch/share recordings here on YouTube. WDI is the leading global organisation defending women's sex-based rights against the threats posed by gender identity ideology. Find out more at https://womensdeclaration.com, where you can join more than 30,000 people and 418 organisations from 157 countries in signing our Declaration on Women's Sex-based Rights. The Declaration reaffirms the sex-based rights of women which are set out in the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 18 December 1979 (#CEDAW).Disclaimer: Women's Declaration International hosts a range of women from all over the world on Feminist Question Time (FQT), on Radical Feminist Perspectives (RFP) and on webinars hosted by country chapters – all have signed our Declaration or have known histories of feminist activism - but beyond that, we do not know their exact views or activism. WDI does not know in detail what they will say on webinars. The views expressed by speakers in these videos are not necessarily those of WDI and we do not necessarily support views or actions that speakers have expressed or engaged in at other times. As well as the position stated in our Declaration on Women's Sex-based Rights, WDI opposes sexism, racism and anti-semitism. For more information, see our Frequently Asked Questions (https://womensdeclaration.com/en/about/faqs/) or email info@womensdeclaration.com.#feminism #radicalfeminism #womensrights

Dear friends,Welcome again to Two Ways News. We do appreciate your fellowship in recommending this podcast to friends and colleagues.Today we are looking at freedom from slavery in the beginning of 1 Corinthians 9, but we decided to call this episode ‘My Rights', for the way the passage has been translated raises the question of ‘rights'. The passage is really about the authority of the Apostle—an authority he does not use in his concern for other people's salvation.It is an extraordinary explanation of the nature of Christ's work of salvation, preached in the apostolic gospel and lived out by the Apostle Paul.Yours,PhillipFreely available, supported by generosity.If you enjoy Two Ways News, why not lend us a hand? Consider joining our Supporters Club—friends who make it possible for us to keep producing this article/podcast. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.twoways.news/subscribe

Historian Clay Jenkinson and John Williams look at the Bill of Rights and discuss the strengths, weaknesses and challenges presented by this 235 year-old document. On this installment, Clay and John examine the Seventh Amendment.

Preached at LCC Goshen

Paul explains his right to receive support as an apostle, but chooses not to use that right so the gospel won’t be hindered. In this passage, we see a model of surrender, laying down personal rights for the sake of ministry and the message of Christ.

Happy Father's Day to our heavenly Father and all our earthly dads! Speaking from the 21st chapter of John's gospel, Pastor John looks to Peter's restoration to demonstrate what we often have to do in order to move closer to God. We need to stop putting our plans / thoughts at an equal level to God's and give up our rights to ourselves.

On this episode of The Truth with Lisa Boothe, Lisa sits down with Defending Education founder Nicki Neily to expose how teachers unions have spent more than $1 billion on political activism while America’s education system continues to decline. Nicki breaks down the rise of woke ideology in schools, the battle over school choice, gender policies in classrooms, and why parents began fighting back after COVID lockdowns. They also discuss declining test scores, union influence, Title IX battles, and the growing movement to restore accountability in education.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Dean's List with Host Dean Bowen – Thomas Jefferson's gift for writing shapes America's founding voice, from A Summary View of the Rights of British America to the Declaration of Independence. His classical education, bold language, and fearless counsel to King George III reveal why John Adams praises him as a man with a masterly pen today...

Unleashed! The Political News Hour with Mayor Deb – Ostrowski calls out the mindset behind the people, like Governor Hochul, who refuse to acknowledge and uphold the Bill of Rights…the progressives. Progressives are individuals and political movements that advocate for social, economic, and environmental justice through government intervention and systemic reform...

The Justice Department disregarded the Crime Victims' Rights Act by secretly negotiating Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 non-prosecution agreement without consulting the girls and young women its own investigators had identified as victims. Federal prosecutors not only failed to tell them that Epstein was bargaining his way out of federal charges, but continued sending communications suggesting that the investigation remained active after the agreement had already been signed. The deal ended the federal investigation in South Florida, protected Epstein from federal prosecution there and extended immunity to several potential co-conspirators, all while those most directly affected were deliberately kept outside the process. A federal judge later concluded that prosecutors had violated the victims' CVRA rights by concealing the agreement and misleading them about the status of the case.The injustice was never meaningfully rectified. Years of litigation produced no rescission of the non-prosecution agreement, no renewed South Florida prosecution under the original case and no effective legal remedy for the survivors whose rights had been denied. In 2021, the Eleventh Circuit ruled that the CVRA did not authorize victims to bring a standalone lawsuit before federal criminal charges had been filed, effectively leaving them without a judicial mechanism to enforce the rights the government had ignored. The Justice Department's internal review criticized former U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta's judgment but found no professional misconduct, imposed no serious accountability and merely promised that the episode would inform future victim-rights practices. By the time Epstein was federally charged in New York in 2019, the original violation had already accomplished its purpose: he had received years of freedom, the South Florida deal remained intact and the survivors never received the remedy that the CVRA was supposed to guarantee.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

This conversation explores how American Jewish World Service understands global justice as an expression of human dignity, solidarity, and the belief that every person deserves the opportunity to live a full and flourishing life. Through stories from Uganda, Kenya, and beyond, Joannine Nanyange describes how AJWS partners with grassroots movements fighting for LGBTQ rights, health access, democracy, and human rights, emphasizing accompaniment rather than charity and agency rather than dependency. Elizabeth Richman connects that work to Jewish teachings about responsibility, arguing that Judaism calls people to expand their circle of concern beyond themselves and to take action when confronted with injustice. In a deeply interconnected world, the struggles of distant communities are never truly distant, and hope is sustained through relationships, shared responsibility, and the collective work of building a more just future. American Jewish World Service (AJWS)is the leading Jewish organization working to fight poverty and defend human rights in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean. We respond to pressing global issues—from humanitarian disasters, authoritarianism and the climate crisis, to the persecution of women and minorities—by supporting hundreds of social change organizations on three continents and advocating for U.S. and international policies protecting human rights. Our supporters are primarily members of the Jewish community, but our work helps people of all religions, races and ethnicities. With Jewish values and a global reach, AJWS is making a difference in millions of lives and building a more just and equitable world for all.   Joaninne Nanyange (she/they) is an attorney with over 13 years of leadership experience in the field of sexual health and rights. Her legal background spans grassroots legal advocacy to global grantmaking, giving her a unique perspective on the needs of the movements AJWS supports. As the Director of AJWS's Sexual Health and Rights team, Joaninne leads a portfolio of seven countries, supporting grassroots movements advancing the rights of women, girls and LGBTQI+ communities. She is also widely recognized as a trusted thought leader in the African sexual health and rights landscape. Rabbi Elizabeth Richman (she/her) leads AJWS's Jewish Engagement team, working with American Jewish clergy, community leaders, and institutions to advance AJWS's mission. Before coming to AJWS, she spent 13 years in executive leadership at Jews United for Justice (JUFJ). Ordained at JTS, Elizabeth is actively involved in the work of the Jewish Social Justice Roundtable and is a senior fellow of the Shalom Hartman Institute. She currently serves on the steering committee of Interfaith Power & Light (DC.MD.NoVa) and previously served as co-chair of the DC Jobs with Justice board and as a member of the Interfaith Worker Justice board. She has also served on the Rabbinical Assembly's Social Action Commission, the Resolutions Committee, and the Rabbinic Career Development Commission. Access full shownotes for this episode via this link. If you're enjoying Judaism Unbound, please help us keep things going with a one-time or monthly tax-deductible donation -- support Judaism Unbound by clicking here!

Send us fan responses! Prosperity doesn't show up because you claim it. It shows up when you build systems that print options. We go from a Mother's Day message straight into the mechanics of money: how “manufactured spend” can make a small balance look like real monthly cash flow, why receipts and bank activity matter, and how the funding game changes when you treat everything like business instead of personal survival. Then we zoom out into the generational layer. We talk about family leadership, what gets passed down when someone dies, and why leaving assets beats leaving bills. You'll hear strong opinions about motherhood, community habits, and why the “first teacher” in a household shapes whether the next generation becomes builders or lifelong renters. Even if you don't agree with every take, the episode keeps pulling the same thread: privacy, structure, and ownership are the foundation of wealth. Finally, we get technical on private records and identity. We walk through alternatives the host claims can support identification and passport evidence, including family Bible records, baptism certificates, and other early records referenced on travel.state.gov. From there we connect identity to structure: making your name a business, using EINs, layering entities under a private trust, and why he believes the public system treats people like assets. If you're searching for business funding, business credit strategy, trust structure basics, private membership education, or generational wealth planning, this one is packed. Subscribe so you don't miss the next live breakdown, share this with someone trying to level up, and leave a review with the one idea you want to test first.https://donkilam.com FOLLOW THE YELLOW BRICK ROAD - DON KILAMGO GET HIS BOOK ON AMAZON NOW! https://www.amazon.com/Cant-Touch-This-Diplomatic-Immunity/dp/B09X1FXMNQ https://open.spotify.com/track/5QOUWyNahqcWvQ4WQAvwjj?autoplay=trueSupport the showhttps://donkilam.com

  In our latest monthly sit-down with the legendary Peter Wilson, we dive deep into the murky world of debt collection and the legal fictions that keep people in financial bondage. Peter reveals the shocking truth about how banks sell your "debts" for pennies on the pound and why most collectors lack the legal right to even knock on your door. But it's not all about the battle; Peter also shares his latest innovation—the AI Sovereign Enterprise Lab. We discuss how you can use artificial intelligence to build a profitable, independent business that operates outside the traditional "Matrix." From the fascinating maternal instincts of racing pigeons to the touching story of a stork's 13-year loyalty, this episode is a masterclass in both the laws of nature and the laws of man.     What we Discussed: 0:00 Welcome & Introduction to Peter Wilson   0:32 The Secret Life of Racing Pigeons: Maternal instincts and the "chipping" process   2:55 The Stork's Loyalty: A 13-year story of true love and migration   4:50 Court Case Updates: Navigating the "long wait of paperwork"   5:51 The Debt Asset Scandal: Buying £10,000 debts for £200   6:30 Law of Property Act 1925: Why debt is an asset and how it must be assigned   7:44 The Data Dump Industry: How collectors breach regulations for profit   9:05 Redacted Proof: Challenging "blacked-out" legal documents in court   11:30 Winning the Battle: Compensation for data breaches and closed cases   12:50 Handling the "Goons": What to do when debt collectors knock on your door   14:50 High Court Writs vs. Debt Collectors: Knowing the difference   16:00 The Fair Pay Negotiation System: Using FCA regulations for forbearance   18:00 Introducing the AI Sovereign Enterprise Lab: Building a business with AI   21:00 The "Magic Show": Editing business funnels in real-time with AI   23:00 Sovereign Income: Why saturation is impossible in a global market   25:30 Community Support: The importance of a supportive and helpful group   26:50 Closing Thoughts: Peter's new AI Sovereign Enterprise Lab link   27:21 Outro: RoyCoughlan.com and the PodFather Network   81:00 End of Episode  

In **The Show Above. The Damage Below: How the Cage Hid the Crime Scene**, **We Saw the Devil** looks at what was happening underneath the spectacle of Trump's White House cage-fight event.The fight night was sold as patriotic entertainment, but the real story was never just the cage. This episode tracks how political spectacle works: keep the audience focused on the lights, the microphones, the slogans, and the outrage while the machinery underneath keeps moving.Robin breaks down the White House UFC-style event, the racist and transphobic attack on Michelle Obama, the silence from the Trump administration, Bud Light's corporate cowardice, and the broader pattern of cruelty being treated as entertainment.From there, the episode follows the damage below: the secretive Iran ceasefire deal, Congress being kept out of the loop, the weaponized Department of Justice, charges against Minnesota protesters, federal agents escaping accountability, attacks on civil rights protections, DHS election concerns, healthcare denial, medical debt, and the public rage surrounding UnitedHealthcare, Brian Thompson, and Luigi Mangione.This is an episode about authoritarian spectacle, Trumpism, political distraction, corporate silence, healthcare profiteering, voter control, civil rights, protest repression, and the systems people are encouraged not to notice.**Topics include:** Trump, White House UFC event, Freedom 250, The Show Above. The Damage Below, How the Cage Hid the Crime Scene, Michelle Obama, Bud Light, Dana White, Joe Rogan, Josh Hokit, Iran ceasefire deal, war powers, Department of Justice, DOJ retaliation, James Comey, Letitia James, Gavin Newsom, Minnesota protests, ICE raids, Department of Education, disabled students, civil rights protections, DHS, election security, UnitedHealthcare, Brian Thompson, Luigi Mangione, healthcare denial, medical debt, authoritarianism, American politics, propaganda, and political spectacle.**We Saw the Devil** covers power, propaganda, corruption, authoritarianism, extremism, media spectacle, and American politics.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/we-saw-the-devil-unfiltered-political-analysis--4433638/support.Website: http://www.wesawthedevil.comPatreon: http://www.patreon.com/wesawthedevilDiscord: https://discord.gg/X2qYXdB4Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/WeSawtheDevilInstagram: http://www.instagram.com/wesawthedevilpodcast.

When the framers of the Declaration of Independence listed “self-evident truths,” they began with three truths that precede any sort of state: “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Yet about one third of the signers of the Declaration were slave owners. Wyoming Catholic College professor Dr. Pavlos Papadopoulos helps us to make some sense of that.

How is increased immigration enforcement impacting the right to religious freedom? Should some "sensitive" locations be treated differently? Get an update on the twists and turns of this legal issue that has real world consequences for religious freedom, houses of worship, schools, hospitals, and other key places in our community. Holly and Amanda discuss the change in policy from the Trump administration, and they go in-depth on the legal and policy response – including long-term strategies and short-term solutions.  SHOW NOTES Segment 1 (starting at 00:35): A new policy that upended everything Holly wrote about the change in the sensitive locations policy in her column for our magazine in the spring of 2025: Defending churches and other sensitive locations from government intrusion   Amanda mentioned the online tracker of incidents: ProtectSensitiveLocations.org   Segment 2 (starting at 07:59): The legal response Learn more about the specific immigration cases on the immigration page of BJC's website. You can also visit the website of the Law, Rights and Religion Project to see their report on immigration and religious liberty.  Baptist News Global shared an update on the lawsuits last week: Sensitive locations lawsuit amended with more concerns   Segment 3 (starting at 26:28): The policy response BJC supports the Protecting Sensitive Locations Act (H.R.1061 / S.455). Want to ask your members of Congress to support the long-term solution? Use our simple form, and we'll send an email from you! Amanda mentioned the following two articles: From PBS Newshour: Trump's deportation agenda is about to get a $70 billion infusion from Congress (via the Associated Press) From The Hill: House sends reconciliation bill funding immigration enforcement to Trump's desk by Sudiksha Kochi Want special emails about our show? Click here to sign up for our email list! You can also let us know at the bottom of that form if you want updates on immigration and other topics.  Video of our episodes are now on YouTube! Click here for the season 7 playlist.  Respecting Religion is made possible by BJC's generous donors. Keep these conversations ad-free with a gift to BJC. 

⚖️ Descarga tu hoja de ruta legal gratis → https://xiola.co/plan✉️ Escríbeme en Instagram → https://www.instagram.com/alexiomarrodriguez/

Bestselling author and journalist A.J. Jacobs and John Williams look at the Bill of Rights and discuss the strengths, weaknesses and challenges presented by this 235 year-old document.

The Justice Department disregarded the Crime Victims' Rights Act by secretly negotiating Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 non-prosecution agreement without consulting the girls and young women its own investigators had identified as victims. Federal prosecutors not only failed to tell them that Epstein was bargaining his way out of federal charges, but continued sending communications suggesting that the investigation remained active after the agreement had already been signed. The deal ended the federal investigation in South Florida, protected Epstein from federal prosecution there and extended immunity to several potential co-conspirators, all while those most directly affected were deliberately kept outside the process. A federal judge later concluded that prosecutors had violated the victims' CVRA rights by concealing the agreement and misleading them about the status of the case.The injustice was never meaningfully rectified. Years of litigation produced no rescission of the non-prosecution agreement, no renewed South Florida prosecution under the original case and no effective legal remedy for the survivors whose rights had been denied. In 2021, the Eleventh Circuit ruled that the CVRA did not authorize victims to bring a standalone lawsuit before federal criminal charges had been filed, effectively leaving them without a judicial mechanism to enforce the rights the government had ignored. The Justice Department's internal review criticized former U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta's judgment but found no professional misconduct, imposed no serious accountability and merely promised that the episode would inform future victim-rights practices. By the time Epstein was federally charged in New York in 2019, the original violation had already accomplished its purpose: he had received years of freedom, the South Florida deal remained intact and the survivors never received the remedy that the CVRA was supposed to guarantee.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Description:As we celebrate Juneteenth, Jen sits down with writer, activist, theologian, and longtime friend Lisa Sharon Harper for a conversation that's equal parts history lesson, spiritual challenge, and call to action. Together, they explore the often-overlooked story of Juneteenth—not just the delayed news of emancipation in Texas, but the deeper history of freedom promised, denied, and fought for across generations.Fresh from a powerful march across Selma's Edmund Pettus Bridge, Lisa reflects on what it means to stand in the footsteps of civil rights heroes while confronting the realities of the present moment. Drawing from her own family's legacy of resistance, she shares why her hope no longer rests in institutions, laws, or political systems, but in ordinary people willing to bend the arc of history toward justice.The conversation moves from the unfinished work of voting rights to the spiritual courage required for this cultural moment. As Lisa puts it, perhaps our task is not simply to recover what has been lost, but to become “the architects of the next America.”Whether you're marking Juneteenth, wrestling with questions about democracy and belonging, or searching for hope in uncertain times, this conversation is a timely reminder that freedom has always depended on people willing to imagine—and build—something better.Thought-provoking Quotes:★ “The Supreme Court has effectively placed us back into the time of Plessy vs Ferguson, which said separate and equal is okay, the time of even Dred Scott, which says a black man has no rights that a white man need abide by. That's what they're gunning for.”★ In the past, my hope was in the law. In the past, my hope was in the dream of America. My hope was in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights. My hope was in the church. But what I'm learning is that the arc of the moral universe has bent toward justice because people have bent it.”★ “What can they do to us? What can they do? They can put us in jail. God is there. They can deport us. God will be there. They can kill us. And God will be there. So what can they do? They can't do anything to us. Not really.” Resources Mentioned in This Episode:➢ (The Gospel of Shalom) Unequally Saved: The Church's Role in Racism with Lisa Sharon Harper - https://jenhatmaker.com/podcasts/series-08/unequally-saved-the-churchs-role-in-racism-with-lisa-sharon-harper/➢ Fortune: How Race Broke My Family and the World--and How to Repair It All by Lisa Sharon Harper - https://amzn.to/43LTXW1➢ “All Roads Lead To The South” Rally - https://blackpowerwarroom.com/dayofaction/➢ A Resistance History of the United States by Tad Stoermer - https://amzn.to/4dK3RNS➢ Amazing Grace | William Wilberforce film - https ...

John Pollock speaks with former WWE co-president George Barrios about his new book, Saudi Arabia-WWE, TV media rights, firing in 2020, Vince McMahon's exit over scandals, and the recent shareholder lawsuit.The two discuss his role as CFO beginning in 2008, the shift to a business-to-business mode, his evolving relationship with Vince McMahon, when he was ready to leave the company, and the very public exit he experienced in 2020, and subsequent return for the TKO merger. Barrios is promoting his new book, Sometimes Wrong but Never in Doubt: How a Cuban Kid from Queens Transformed WWEPhotos courtesy: WWE, Peakpoint Press Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/postwrestling.comX: http://www.twitter.com/POSTwrestlingInstagram: http://www.instagram.com/POSTwrestlingFacebook: http://www.facebook.com/POSTwrestling YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/POSTwrestlingSubscribe: https://postwrestling.com/subscribePatreon: http://postwrestlingcafe.comForum: https://forum.postwrestling.comDiscord: https://postwrestling.com/discordSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Margaret continues talking with Andrew Ti about the worldwide movement, backed by science, that is changing how we treat children. Sources: https://africapublicity.com/of-ancestors-and-amendments-rethinking-child-discipline-across-african-realms/https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/happiest-countries-in-the-worldhttps://endcorporalpunishment.org/reports-on-every-state-and-territory/usa/https://www.right-to-education.org/sites/right-to-education.org/files/resource-attachments/CRC_1989.pdfhttps://www.ursulakleguin.com/blog?offset=1437445500607https://www.puyallupwa.gov/535/Domestic-Violence-Statisticshttps://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7390231/https://issop.org/2018/11/19/e-bulletin-35-2-3-changing-the-law-on-corporal-punishment-in-scotland/https://news.utexas.edu/2021/06/29/evidence-against-physically-punishing-kids-is-clear-researchers-say/http://www.jillianvanturnhout.ie/jvt1111/https://www.jstor.org/stable/26938757?seq=6https://ijcrt.org/papers/IJCRT2506708.pdfhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/383296874_Corporal_Punishment_From_Ancient_History_to_Global_Progresshttps://medium.com/@rabittashahbaz/heres-how-ancient-indian-parenting-values-and-approaches-changed-over-time-4d861b489388https://www.europarl.europa.eu/cmsdata/180595/20090210ATT48998EN.pdfhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty-first_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Irelandhttps://brilliantmaps.com/corporal-punishment/https://endcorporalpunishment.org/reports-on-every-state-and-territory/usa/https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29261462https://agefinder.org/world-age-culture/marriage-age-under-18-countries/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._ratification_of_the_Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Childhttps://www.africanexponent.com/how-colonialism-deceived-africans-to-believe-hitting-children-is-african-tradition-it-is-not/https://www.unh.edu/ccrc/sites/default/files/media/2022-02/corporal-punishment-current-rates-from-a-national-survey.pdf https://www.brookings.edu/articles/corporal-punishment-schools-and-race-an-update/ https://www.morgan.edu/Documents/ACADEMIA/SCHOOLS/SSW/MSW%20publications/s12111-024-09646-9%20%281%29.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20160127213730/http://www.phoenixchildrens.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/principles_and_practices-of_effective_discipline.pdf https://endcorporalpunishment.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/India.pdf https://endcorporalpunishment.org/irelands-journey-why-didnt-we-do-this-years-ago/ https://link.springer.com/rwe/10.1007/978-3-319-89999-2_13 https://ijcrt.org/papers/IJCRT2506708.pdf https://habevio.com/corporal-punishment-in-ancient-greece/ https://psycnet.apa.org/manuscript/2025-10635-001.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20110314161338/http://www.zona-pellucida.com/wilson02.htmlSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

CORPORATIONS ARE PLUNDERING AMERICA! OUR RIGHTS ARE DISAPPEARING

Welcome to the first episode of our new series all about workers' rights. My guest this week is Christina Hajagos-Clausen who is the IndustriALL Global Union's director for the Textile, Garment, Shoe and Leather Sector. Our interview was recorded during the organisation's 4th Global Congress held in Sydney at the end of last year, at "a critical moment. Workers everywhere are being hit by converging crises, growing inequality, the climate emergency, digital disruption and the increasing concentration of corporate power." So how can workers ensure get to help shape a future that is fair, democratic and just?This is an expansive conversation that covers everything from: Why are trade unions necessary to the New Industrial Revolution, automation and AI. We explore what unions doing in the global textile & garment sector to shape a just transition. We look at specific garment producing countries and stories - including whether or not to boycott Made in Myanmar - plus the whole idea of the Labor movement as a check on fascism everywhere.If you find the interview valuable, please help us share it.Find links and further reading at thewardrobecrisis.comSupport the show on Substack - wardrobecrisis.substack.comTell us what you think. Find Clare on Instagram @mrspress Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Today on The Editors, Rich, Charlie, MBD, and Noah discuss the MOU, Trump's birthday celebration, and much more. Editors' Picks: Rich: NR's editorial “Release the Text of the Iran Deal” Charlie: Hans A. von Spakovsky and Marc Wheat “The Bill of Rights' Missing Amendment” Noah: Kaitlyn Kiepert's piece “Coming Soon: Humanity's First Outpost in Deep Space” MBD: Ramesh's magazine piece “The Fights on the Right” Light Items: Rich: Disclosure Day Charlie: Thunderstorms Noah: Boat season MBD: End of rec league baseball season Sponsors:Made InVaer This podcast was edited and produced by Sarah Colleen Schutte. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Margaret talks with Andrew Ti about the worldwide movement, backed by science, that is changing how we treat children. Sources: https://africapublicity.com/of-ancestors-and-amendments-rethinking-child-discipline-across-african-realms/https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/happiest-countries-in-the-worldhttps://endcorporalpunishment.org/reports-on-every-state-and-territory/usa/https://www.right-to-education.org/sites/right-to-education.org/files/resource-attachments/CRC_1989.pdfhttps://www.ursulakleguin.com/blog?offset=1437445500607https://www.puyallupwa.gov/535/Domestic-Violence-Statisticshttps://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7390231/https://issop.org/2018/11/19/e-bulletin-35-2-3-changing-the-law-on-corporal-punishment-in-scotland/https://news.utexas.edu/2021/06/29/evidence-against-physically-punishing-kids-is-clear-researchers-say/http://www.jillianvanturnhout.ie/jvt1111/https://www.jstor.org/stable/26938757?seq=6https://ijcrt.org/papers/IJCRT2506708.pdfhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/383296874_Corporal_Punishment_From_Ancient_History_to_Global_Progresshttps://medium.com/@rabittashahbaz/heres-how-ancient-indian-parenting-values-and-approaches-changed-over-time-4d861b489388https://www.europarl.europa.eu/cmsdata/180595/20090210ATT48998EN.pdfhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty-first_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Irelandhttps://brilliantmaps.com/corporal-punishment/https://endcorporalpunishment.org/reports-on-every-state-and-territory/usa/https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29261462https://agefinder.org/world-age-culture/marriage-age-under-18-countries/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._ratification_of_the_Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Childhttps://www.africanexponent.com/how-colonialism-deceived-africans-to-believe-hitting-children-is-african-tradition-it-is-not/https://www.unh.edu/ccrc/sites/default/files/media/2022-02/corporal-punishment-current-rates-from-a-national-survey.pdf https://www.brookings.edu/articles/corporal-punishment-schools-and-race-an-update/ https://www.morgan.edu/Documents/ACADEMIA/SCHOOLS/SSW/MSW%20publications/s12111-024-09646-9%20%281%29.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20160127213730/http://www.phoenixchildrens.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/principles_and_practices-of_effective_discipline.pdf https://endcorporalpunishment.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/India.pdf https://endcorporalpunishment.org/irelands-journey-why-didnt-we-do-this-years-ago/ https://link.springer.com/rwe/10.1007/978-3-319-89999-2_13 https://ijcrt.org/papers/IJCRT2506708.pdf https://habevio.com/corporal-punishment-in-ancient-greece/ https://psycnet.apa.org/manuscript/2025-10635-001.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20110314161338/http://www.zona-pellucida.com/wilson02.htmlSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Washington Roundtable discusses Donald Trump's eightieth birthday, on Sunday, with a look at the pageantry and spectacle surrounding the planned U.F.C. fight on the South Lawn of the White House. The panel contrasts Trump's desire to project power and masculinity with his recent pattern of disinhibition: from allegedly falling asleep at important meetings and the N.B.A. Finals to angry outbursts at reporters, including such politically damaging statements as “I love the inflation.” Is the President fading, physically and politically? “It's not about the age; it's about the behavior,” the staff writer Evan Osnos says. “It's about the clear fact that his conduct, his cognitive function, his behavior is declining.”This week's reading: “What Jill Biden Doesn't Say in Her White House Memoir,” by Amy Davidson Sorkin “Can the World Cup Transcend Donald Trump?,” by Ishaan Tharoor “The Supreme Court's Latest Blow to Black Voters' Rights,” by Ruth Marcus “Is Elon Musk's SpaceX Really Worth $1.75 Trillion?,” by John Cassidy “Has Nancy Mace's Crusade Against Sexual Violence Ruined Her Career?,” by Moira Donegan “For the Nation's Birthday, Making It Harder to Become an American,” by Jonathan Blitzer The Political Scene draws on the reporting and analysis found in The New Yorker for lively conversations about the big questions in American politics. Join the magazine's writers and editors as they put into context the latest news—about elections, the economy, the White House, the Supreme Court, and much more. New episodes are available three times a week. Tune in to The Political Scene wherever you get your podcasts. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Steven Rinella and the MeatEater crew discuss: Georgia's Argentine tegu problem with Daniel Sollenberger of the Georgia DNR; the Centennial State's fight for constitutional hunting rights with Dan Gates of Coloradans for Responsible Wildlife Management; the Trump administration's opening of wildlife refuges to hunting; giant trout in Lake Superior; and more. Connect with Steve and The MeatEater Podcast Network Steve on Instagram and Twitter MeatEater on Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTubeSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.