The headlines are astounding. They reveal a renewed thrust to pass bills and statutes that restrict not only freedom, but Truth.
A judge who decides what information the public are told via the newspaper about a much-maligned young man, who was probably a patsy?
Broward County hasn’t yet completely destroyed the life of Nikolas Cruz, the boy blamed for the shootings at the Parkland High School but they’re putting in a lot of effort pre-trial. Why all the secrecy, Judge? Why is it necessary to have redacted documents with respect to this young man’s past? ~ BP
A Judge Is Trying to Censor Parkland School’s Treatment of Nikolas Cruz: Here Are the Documents
August 17, 2018
(ANTIMEDIA) — A Florida judge recently proclaimed her right to decide what a newspaper publishes amid the South Florida Sun-Sentinel’s decision to publish a redacted report on Nikolas Cruz, the perpetrator of the Parkland school shooting in February.
The outlet obtained a redacted version of the report documents from the school district detailing what school officials knew about him in the years leading up to the attack. The report, however, was mostly redacted pursuant to a court order, but reporters discovered that by copying and pasting it into a different document, they could see the entirety of its contents. It decided to publish in a move Broward County circuit judge Judge Elizabeth Scherer called “shameful.”
According to the Sun Sentinel, the report revealed:
“– School officials didn’t properly advise Cruz of his legal options when he was faced with removal from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School his junior year, leading him to give up special education services.
“– When Cruz failed to file the required written rejection of special education services, school officials nudged him, writing it up for him to sign.
“– The district ‘did not follow through’ on Cruz’s subsequent request to return to the therapeutic environment of Cross Creek School for special education students.”
You can read the full, uncensored document here.
The district initially filed a request for the court to hold the Sentinel in contempt only to later walk it back, claiming they only wanted to inform the court of what happened.
Scherer said her disapproval of the paper’s decision to publish the report in full was rooted in Cruz’ chance of receiving a fair trial and said she was considering holding the Sentinel in contempt of court. “If you have in fact created some type of jeopardy to the fair trial of Mr. Cruz then that’s something that the Sun Sentinel will have to live with whether that matters to you I don’t know. As far as the motion to invoke contempt proceedings, I’m going to take the matter under advisement,” she said.
“From now on if I have to specifically write word for word exactly what you are and are not permitted to print – and I have to take the papers myself and redact them with a Sharpie … then I’ll do that,” she also said.
The paper stands by their decision and has the support of a coalition of 30 journalistic organizations, including the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, the Society of Professional Journalists, the New York Times, and CBS Broadcasting.
Julie Anderson, the paper’s editor-in-chief, said:
“The Sun Sentinel obtained this report lawfully, found its contents to be of great public interest, and did its duty. As the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press noted, ‘The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held that the press cannot be punished for publishing or broadcasting truthful information of public concern that the press obtained legally.’”
Further, they cited Philip Seib, a professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and an expert on journalistic ethics, who placed the blame on the government. “It sounds to me like the people who were in contempt were those in the government agency who allowed it to be disseminated in a way that any school child could have decoded,” he said.
For now, Scherer has stopped short of ruling the Sun Sentinel acted in contempt of court. This is not the first time news organizations have run up against the government while covering the mass shooting. Earlier this year, a group of news outlets, including the Sun Sentinel, sued to demand the release of security footage from outside Parkland high school. That video was supposed to be released in July but was delayed after an appeals court ruling.
Seriously, passing a bill under the guise of preventing obesity and hence cancer? Yet they pushed for mandatory vaccinations—so it’s okay to kill children with one tool if you pass a bill to protect them from something else? What about the antibiotics, herbicides, Roundup/glyphosate and GMOs from the cattle that produce the milk they want the restaurants to offer?
The bill says, “punishable by fines“. Do Californians like that kind of wording? This is outrageous. Will they roll over and go back to sleep or do they like paying fines? They can send spies in to any restaurant to “spot check” whether the legislation is being adhered to and issue fines.
The New World Order always finds a way to make their plan sound appealing and like it’s for our own good. People are giving up their freedoms hand over fist when they do nothing to remove policy-makers passing these laws or statutes but of course the American Cancer Society is all in on this one and they know best, right? What’s REALLY behind this?
As always, after an initiative like THIS one passes, what’s NEXT? It’s always an incremental step to something bigger and more ominous. The totalitarian tip-toe… and into the toilet she goes. California is SO close now.
Someone in California thought THIS was a good idea, so there’s no accounting for some people’s taste. It seems they LIKE toilets, and don’t mind eating out of one. ~ BP
California Wants to Force Restaurants to Only Offer Kids Milk or Water With Meals
August 17, 2018
According to the text of S.B. 1192:
“This bill would require a restaurant, as defined, that sells a children’s meal that includes a beverage, to make the default beverage water, sparkling water, or flavored water, as specified, or unflavored milk or a nondairy milk alternative, as specified. The bill would not prohibit a restaurant’s ability to sell, or a customer’s ability to purchase, an alternative beverage if the purchaser requests one.”
The bill does not prohibit restaurants from selling other drinks to children, but it forces them to offer water or milk first. The penalties are as follows:
“The bill would make a violation of its provisions an infraction, but would make the first violation subject to a notice of violation. Under the bill, the 2nd and 3rd violations would be punishable by fines of not more than $250 and $500, respectively. By imposing additional duties on local enforcement agencies and by creating a new crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.”
Lawmakers say the new law is intended to help combat childhood obesity in the state, but not all parents are convinced. “It’s a good idea, but ultimately it’s up to the parents,” one California mother told CBS News.
“Cancer is fought in the halls of government, not just in the halls of the hospital,” said Stephanie Winn of the American Cancer Society, which supports the bill. “Some of these kids are drinking up to three sodas a day. This is setting them up for tremendous cancer risks down the road. Because now we know that 20 percent of all cancers are tied to being overweight,” she said.Some lawmakers objected. “Seriously, like, what’s next?” asked Assemblyman Matthew Harper, R-Huntington Beach. “Are we going to insist that you have to have kale in your salad unless you specifically ask otherwise?”
Nevertheless, the bill, which was introduced in the Senate by majority leader Sen. Bill Monning, was just passed by the Assembly. It will return to the Senate for one more vote before it is sent to Governor Jerry Brown’s desk. The bill passed easily in both houses.