With our diverse line-up of original, high-quality programming, our distribution partners across EMEA recognise the benefits of offering A+E Networks EMEA's distinctive, high quality brands on their platforms and services. We understand the opportunity to grow engagement with new audiences of all ages and through new partnerships with Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, TikTok and Snapchat, along with our podcasts and on-demand SVOD services, we ensure our programming and unique stories reach audiences across the full demographic spectrum.
AZNude has a global mission to organize celebrity nudity from television and make it universally free, accessible, and usable. We have a free collection of nude celebs and movie sex scenes; which include naked celebs, lesbian, boobs, underwear and butt pics, hot scenes from movies and series, nude and real sex celeb videos.
Attorney General Eric Holder noted that much of the technological advances in these areas were unimaginable 20 years ago and that it was necessary to update ADA regulations and compliance codes. In particular, state and local governments, businesses, educational institutions, and other ADA-covered entities are increasingly providing information, goods, and services to the public online; however, many of those entities' websites are not accessible by persons with disabilities. The Department will seek input as to how a workable framework for website access can be developed that provides individuals with disabilities access to information, programs, and services provided on the web without requiring changes that would undermine the unique character of the online universe or its transformative impact on everyday life.
With the end of MoviePass, Regal Cinemas is now jumping into the movie subscription game. Frugal film fanatics can join its new Regal Unlimited program for blockbuster savings. With the annual movie subscription pass, members can watch as many movies as they want, as many times as they want. Plus, they receive 10 percent off all food and non-alcoholic beverages, a free large popcorn and soft drink on their birthday, and access to exclusive screenings. Membership starts at $18 per month. (Each subscription has an initial, non-cancellable term of one year.) You can pay for the entire year upfront or month-to-month. If you go the movies just a few times a month, the membership easily pays for itself. However, there is a surcharge for any screenings in a premium format, including IMAX, RPX and 3-D. regmovies.com/static/en/us/unlimited
Believing in free speech means facing some nauseating examples of free speech and still believing in free speech even after you have seen the full horror of what some people will say when given free speech.
Imagine the most horrible person saying the most horrible things. Now, picture yourself standing next to that person saying that he has the right to express himself. That is what is required of those that want to say they believe in free speech. Anything else is lip service.
Regulation for improved securityThis debate has been covered pretty extensively in the media, so I'llsummarize it by noting that the breakdown was mostly Bruce Schneier and DickClarke (arguing that government has to force more security) vs. HarrisMiller from ITAA & Rick White (who think the free market does fine andregulation is inherently evil). A hot topic of debate was the Choicepointcase (theft of credit information) which happened the day before. Schneierpointed out that companies need to be actually responsible, not just givelip service to security. Specifically, Choicepoint's customers aren't thepeople whose information was stolen, but rather other companies - soChoicepoint has little non-regulatory incentive to do a better job. Herecognizes that regulation *will* stifle innovation, but we need to make thetradeoff for the good of society. His summary was "When we haveself-regulation, security becomes a PR issue". Dick Clarke also suggestedthat disclosure might work as a substitute for regulation, just as Y2Kregulations forced companies to disclose, not to fix. Right now, accountingcompanies are setting the security bar via SOX compliance - is that reallywhat we want?
UNDER the covert of a thick wood, at the foot of a tree, as a Lynx lay whetting his teeth, and waiting for his prey, he espied a Mole, half buried under a hillock of her own raising. Alas, poor creature, said the Lynx, how much I pity thee! Surely Jupiter has been very unkind, to debar thee from the light of the day which rejoices the whole creation. Thou art certainly not above half alive; and it would be doing thee a service to put an end to so unanimated a being. I thank you for your kindness, replied the Mole, but I think I have full as much vivacity as my state and circumstances require. For the rest I am perfectly well contented with the faculties which Jupiter has allotted me, who I am sure wants not our direction in distributing his gifts with propriety. I have not, 'tis true your piercing eyes; but I have ears which answers all my purposes full as well. Hark! for example, I am warned, by a noise which I hear behind you, to fly from danger. So saying, he slunk into the earth; while a javelin from the arm of a hunter pierced the quick-sight Lynx to the heart.
The tenor of the report is that online services have potential for significant and widespread harm and, before they can consider the good they can achieve, they have to be designed to avoid harms and then continually take action to prevent harmful content and activity arising. In a concept which runs through the report, the Committee's view is that service providers should be "liable for failure to take reasonable steps to combat reasonably foreseeable harm resulting from the operation of their services".
There's no guarantee as to what may happen with the recommendations but it is worth services carefully considering the direction of travel and bearing the recommendations in mind in any public policy engagement on the Bill.
The Report does not expressly recommend that this approach be entirely replaced. However, there is some suggestion that it is not the demarcation between UGC and provider-controlled content which should determine the content which is in scope but, rather, whether the content (and related activity) could cause harm. If that is right, then the Committee is implicitly recommending a significant extension in scope of the Bill. At the very least, the Report suggests that the largest online pornography providers whose services don't have user-to-user elements should still be in scope of safety duties in respect of children.
The duties that apply to a service would continue to depend on its categorisation but it appears that all, rather than just the largest, services would have obligations in respect of content that is legal but harmful to adults and active obligations in respect of protecting freedom of expression in relation to certain kinds of content.
The Committee's view is that the Bill's focus on harmful content is incomplete, and it should also cover the activities, design and operation of services. For the Committee, online safety is not just about moderating content but also about the design of platforms and the ways people interact with content. Its view is that safety by design is critical to reducing the prevalence and reach of harmful online activity. And the activity the Committee is most concerned about is the propensity for services to facilitate and bring about sharing and spread of harmful material.
There would then be definitions referring to specific areas of law that either apply in the offline world (but have not yet been extended to the online world) or have been specifically recognised in other contexts as legitimate grounds to interfere with freedom of expression. According to the Report, these could include abuse based on protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010, threatening communications, disinformation likely to endanger public health and content and activity that promotes eating disorders and self-harm. The Secretary of State would have a restricted power to amend this list. The Report doesn't seem to suggest that this duty (applying in relation to legal but harmful content) would be limited to the largest services, as the Bill does.
The Committee recommends that the highest risk service providers be required to archive and securely store all evidence of removed content from online publication for a set period of time, unless to do so would in itself be unlawful. It is unlawful in most circumstances, for example, to possess CSEA imagery once on notice of it. In those cases, service providers should store records of having removed the content, its nature and any referrals made to law enforcement.
Since the first government proposal on online harms, each subsequent proposal has purported to ratchet up the protection for freedom of expression but has not succeeded in reconciling its fundamental incompatibility with the safety duties to be imposed on services. This Report continues that trend and creates further tension for services between their safety duties and duties to protect freedom of expression.
The Bill currently imposes duties on Category 1 services to protect content of democratic importance and journalistic content (outside of this context, services only have a duty to have regard to users' right to freedom of expression). The Committee disagreed with the approach the Bill takes to those terms. Instead, it recommended replacing their protections with a single statutory requirement to have proportionate systems and processes to protect content where there are reasonable grounds to believe it will be in the public interest. Examples of content that would be likely to be in the public interest would be journalistic content, contributions to political or societal debate and whistleblowing. That is a narrow list (compared to, for example, section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013) but may be broadened by Ofcom in its Code of Practice. 2b1af7f3a8