Aggregator

Instead of jumping for joy, Argentina opted to throw their best player in the air.

The podcast host nearly followed in her longtime pal's Bravo footsteps, she told "Virtual Reali-Tea."

The podcast host nearly followed in her longtime pal's Bravo footsteps, she told "Virtual Reali-Tea."

For the first time in eons, the legendary game show “Jeopardy!” is hiring a new clue writer.

The state has a goal of expanding tribal stewardship over at least 7.5 million acres of lands and coastal waters in California.

Don’t tell me this wasn’t a failure.

“I’m not a threat to you at all. I’m very effeminate. I’m not a threat, OK? I’ll make her laugh, and then you finish the job.”

Many powerhouse banks bought up SpaceX at $135 a share during its historic IPO last month – and now they’re expecting the price to shoot up to $236 on average.

Dana Williamson, a former chief of staff to Gov. Gavin Newsom, will learn this fall whether she'll go to prison after pleading guilty in a corruption scheme that siphoned $225,000 from a campaign committee tied to Xavier Becerra, the Democratic frontrunner to succeed Newsom.

Oar you kidding.

Oakland police are desperately searching for a woman violently kidnapped on Friday last week.

These “workhorse” robots can operate from the beach to deep water, carrying mine detection gear and saving lives by replacing human technicians.

A body language expert told The Post it was apparent from the start that Erdoğan was in Trump's good graces.

Jordanna James and Krista Sulacia stopped by the Page Six studio to chat with our “Virtual Reali-Tea” co-hosts, Danny Murphy and Evan Real, about season one of TLC’s hit show “Little Singles.” Jordanna, a “Little Women NYC” alum, gushed about dancing alongside Miley Cyrus during her Bangers Tour, while Krista talked about how inspired she...

Jordanna James and Krista Sulacia stopped by the Page Six studio to chat with our “Virtual Reali-Tea” co-hosts, Danny Murphy and Evan Real, about season one of TLC’s hit show “Little Singles.” Jordanna, a “Little Women NYC” alum, gushed about dancing alongside Miley Cyrus during her Bangers Tour, while Krista talked about how inspired she...

Sean Payton almost turned the NFL upside down in 2024. 

Federal Appeals Court Rules Sex Offenders Have Constitutional Right To Live With Their Children

Authored by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times,

A federal appeals court ruled July 6 that convicted sex offenders retain a fundamental constitutional right to live with their own children.

The new ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit arises out of an Alabama case but could help reshape strict sex offender residency laws in the other two states in the circuit—Florida and Georgia—and serve as persuasive authority elsewhere.

At the heart of the case is the constitutional doctrine of substantive due process, which protects certain fundamental rights that are not explicitly listed in the U.S. Constitution but deeply rooted in U.S. history and tradition, including the right of parents to live with and raise their children.

The court ruled 8–5 in favor of the plaintiff, Bruce Henry, in the case known as Henry v. Sheriff of Tuscaloosa County.

The majority opinion was authored by Circuit Judge Robin Rosenbaum.

In 2013, Henry pleaded guilty to “knowingly possess[ing] ... any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, computer disk, or any other material that contains an image of child pornography.”

The opinion recounts that the federal district court sentenced him to 70 months in prison and 60 months of supervised release.

He served five years before being released in March 2018.

He finished a qualified Sex Offender Treatment Program, along with individual and group counseling, and continues to attend weekly meetings of Sex Addicts Anonymous. In addition, he has a steady job, attends church, and volunteers.

He violated the terms of supervised release twice by viewing pornography. He reported the violations to his sexual offender treatment provider but did not inform his probation officer. The officer filed a petition to revoke his supervised release, but the district court declined, choosing instead to extend the duration of the supervised release period through March of this year, according to the opinion.

Since the last incident in December 2019, Henry has followed the terms of his release. In August 2021, he and his wife had a son, but because he was a sex offender, the Alabama Sex Offender Registration and Community Notification Act barred him from living with the child.

The Act prohibits a sex offender from residing with or conducting overnight visits with any minor, but it contains a family exception that allows the offender to live with or stay overnight with their own children, grandchildren, step-children, siblings, or step-siblings.

That protection is removed for any adult convicted of a sex offense involving a child or any offense involving child sexual abuse material, legally referred to as child pornography.

“Alabama law affords no offramp to Henry or anyone else: the Act contains no mechanism for offenders to challenge its prohibitions on residing or staying overnight with their own children,” the opinion said.

After Henry’s son was born, he sued officials in Alabama under federal law to block enforcement of the Act’s prohibition against him living with his son. The district court agreed that the prohibition was unconstitutional and enjoined its enforcement.

A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruled largely for Henry, finding that the Act’s prohibition against a parent living with his own child interfered with Henry’s “fundamental right to live with and raise [his] child,” and vacated the district court’s injunction.

The full 11th Circuit then reheard the case and ruled for Henry.

The Supreme Court has recognized that parents have a fundamental right to live with their children, and this right is “perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests” that the 14th Amendment protects, the opinion said.

By contrast, Alabama argued that not all parents enjoy this right and that entire categories of parents enjoy “no fundamental rights at all because they committed state-defined ‘misconduct’ years before their children were even born.” The Supreme Court has recognized that even a parent convicted of possessing “child pornography” still retains a fundamental right to live with his son, the opinion said.

“That does not mean that Alabama can’t regulate or even abrogate that right. But to do so, Alabama must show that its legislation is narrowly tailored to further its compelling interest in the safety of children,” the appeals court said. Abrogation is the act of formally annulling a law or legal provision.

The appeals court returned the case to the district court for reconsideration.

Chief Circuit Judge William Pryor filed a dissenting opinion, criticizing the majority for undermining Alabama’s child-protection efforts.

“All agree that parents generally enjoy a fundamental right to ‘make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children,’” Pryor said.

“But this appeal presents a different question: whether the Due Process Clause [in the 14th Amendment] grants child-sex convicts, not parents generally, a fundamental right to reside with their children. Of course not.”

Pryor said that using the majority’s reasoning, a father who raped his young child still enjoys the fundamental right to live with that child unless he has been judicially determined to be dangerous.

Pryor also said the doctrine of substantive due process creates a “treacherous field,” and the Supreme Court has directed courts to “exercise the utmost care whenever ... asked to break new ground,” to avoid usurping the authority that the Constitution entrusts to elected legislatures.

Tyler Durden Tue, 07/07/2026 - 16:20

The impact screen time is having on younger children.

The View's Sunny Hostin Says American Flags Make Her Feel 'Unsafe'

Authored by Eric Utter via AmericanThinker.com,

The View’s preternaturally ignorant and repulsive Sunny Hostin recently stated:

There are times when I walk into a community and I see American flags all over the community and I suddenly feel unsafe because there's a section of this country that has coopted the American flag and they equate being an American or an American flag with white supremacy and that should never be the symbol of white supremacy, but they have weaponized [it].

No, Sunny, you have equated the American flag with white supremacy, and you have weaponized it to fit your false narrative. 

You have attempted to demean it, cheapen it, demonize it … and everyone who fought and died for it. All for cheap praise from morons and Marxists.

I’m guessing Sunny would feel far less safe if she were surrounded by a plethora of North Korean flags, Iranian flags, Russian flags, or perhaps even Antifa flags. If not, she’s even dumber than she appears, which would be truly miraculous.

I feel a bit uneasy, a tad concerned, when I am amongst a bunch of Palestinian flags, as I was at my daughter’s college graduation. Nor do I feel comfortable when mobs of misfits are waving the LGBTQ flag or trans flag in my face. The Satanic Flag/Baphomet Church of Satan flag gives me the creeps. Any communist flag makes me sick to my stomach.

Conversely, when I am surrounded by Old Glory, I get a sense of place, belonging, and peace. I know that the folks flying them likely recognize and appreciate freedom, history, sacrifice, and the unalienable rights granted to us by our Creator. How could any flag make one feel better than that?

So, “Sunny,” how do you think the American flag made slaves feel during the Civil War? Guessing the Union banner gave them hope and courage. (Say, didn’t one or more of Sunny’s ancestors own and trade slaves?)

The American flag has given more hope to more people around the world than any other.

That is inarguable. It has made more people feel “safe” and protected than any other. Perhaps if Sunny had been in France when American and allied troops liberated it, she would have known this. Maybe if she had been in Ohrdruf, Dachau, or Buchenwald when American troops liberated those still alive in these Nazi concentration camps, she would feel a bit differently.

The stupefying ignorance of the chattering class is almost impossible to comprehend.

It is akin to trying to rationally process the size of the universe. Worse yet, this ignorance is now paired with sheer, unadulterated evil.

Those who hate America, capitalism, entrepreneurship, excellence, decency, the Judeo-Christian work ethic, Christianity, the Founders, limited government, the rule of law, and the concept of unalienable rights granted by our Creator -- among other aspects of a successfully functioning democratic republic — actually despise “democracy,” liberty, tolerance, inclusion, and empathy.

Conversely, they worship themselves, and their own hatred of success and competence. And their desire to destroy all that has come before them. In their unique and misplaced attempt to trash history and elevate themselves to deity status, they reveal themselves to be some of the most contemptible and pathetic folks ever to trod the Earth.

Tyler Durden Tue, 07/07/2026 - 15:40

Beijing Weighs Restricting Foreign Access To China's Top AI Models

Up until now, the politicization of AI models generally ran in one direction with US "frontier" LLM providers such as Anthropic and ChatGPT complaining consistently that Chinese open-sourced models were "distilling" (i.e. reverse-engineering) their products. And whether true or not, China has certainly been able to catch up dramatically to the US, with China's latest open-model, GLM 5.2, viewed as just barely behind the latest comparable US offerings, while the average gap between US and Chinese models has shrunk to almost nothing.

As complaints on both sides have become more vocal (amid occasional bans of the latest Anthropic model by the White House admin), last week we reported that for the first time, China's tech giant Alibaba banned employees from using Anthropic's Claude ‌Code at work after the tool drew scrutiny for features that can help identify China-linked users, Reuters reported.

Fast forward to today when the Reuters reported that in the latest escalation, Beijing is preparing to fully flip the script on the US tech sector as Chinese authorities have held meetings with top tech firms over the past month about potentially restricting overseas access to China's most advanced AI models, including those yet to be released. 

The talks follow a number of steps by Beijing to keep homegrown ‌AI within the country and underscore how China, like the US, is now treating cutting-edge artificial intelligence as a critical national asset that needs controls. Companies present at the talks included ‌tech giants Alibaba and ByteDance as well as startup Z.ai, creator of the GLM-5.2 mode, said Reuters' sources. 

Since the emergence of DeepSeek's R1 model last year, Chinese AI models have made massive ​inroads globally thanks to their low costs and increasing capabilities. Any decision by Beijing to limit access to those products could ripple across AI markets as costs for many businesses would likely increase. It would be a boon to AI supplier stocks  which have plunged in recent days as a result of fears that US users of LLMs may gravitate to much cheaper, if just as capable, Chinese alternatives leading to huge revenue declines at US frontier companies. 

At the meetings, led by China's Ministry of Commerce, participants discussed putting limits on the most advanced AI models, both closed-source and more open versions, according to two of the sources.

Officials talked about making any leak or theft of proprietary AI technology an offense under China's stringent national security law. The officials also raised the possibility of implementing new measures to restrict who ‌can fund domestic AI startups, the source added.

The scope of the ⁠potential restrictions is still being discussed, two sources said, adding that they may only apply to future models. It was not immediately clear when or even if they would come into force.

All three leading Chinese AI companies - Alibaba, ByteDance and Z.ai - have a range of AI models, some closed-source while others are open-weight, meaning users can download, run and customise the underlying systems. Alibaba's Qwen and ByteDance's Doubao are two of the most widely used AI models in China. Z.ai has recently set Silicon Valley abuzz as the capabilities of its ​GLM-5.2 ​model come close to leading U.S. offerings but at a fraction of the cost. 

Trump's administration has also been deeply concerned about national security ‌implications of AI, in particular the potential for American AI products to be misused by military intelligence in China, Russia and other countries of concern. In June, it ordered that foreign nationals not have access to Anthropic's most advanced Fable and Mythos models, which prompted the company to disable the models for all users globally as nationality could not be verified in real time.

Export controls for Fable, which is designed for the general public, have since been lifted after new safeguards were put in place. But Mythos, designed for cybersecurity professionals, is still only available to some "trusted" U.S. organizations.

Some US AI experts have also said the US needs to regulate the use of Chinese AI models. According to two of the sources, Chinese authorities are deeply worried about the ‌potential for Mythos to exploit software vulnerabilities and that Washington might deploy the model against Chinese interests.

That echoes ​concerns publicly voiced by state media and Zhou Hongyi, founder of cybersecurity firm 360, a major vendor to government ​and enterprise clients, who has said China needs to develop its own Mythos.

Amid the rising techno-nationalism, China has implemented numerous measures to protect homegrown AI this year. In April, the country's state planner ordered Meta to unwind its $2 billion acquisition of Chinese-founded AI startup Manus. In ‌early June, authorities issued sweeping new rules, tightening control of overseas deals ​that involve Chinese investors, technology, data and national security.

China ​had also launched investigations this year into Manus and other local AI startups that had moved abroad, seeking to establish whether they have broken export control laws, according to two of the sources and a third person.

In its report, Reuters says that it was not able to learn how any potential new restrictions on overseas access to Chinese ​AI models might work. But some hints might be gleaned from a May ‌roundtable of Chinese legal experts on regulations governing open-source AI.

According to a summary of the discussions published in an official Supreme People's Court journal, participants proposed a ​tiered system: basic open-source tools subject to a simple filing, more advanced technologies facing security reviews, and the most sensitive frontier models barred from public release or restricted ​to domestic use. 

If indeed China is about to start its own AI "firewall", the question is what happens then? Recall, in blowback to the short-lived tokenmaxxing idiocy, a growing number of American enterprises are quietly gravitating toward cheaper Chinese models.

But if China itself limits access to US clients, does this mean that the balance of power shifts back to US LLMs which will then become the only available AI vendors to US corporations. If so, is Beijing making a big mistake depriving its nascent AI ecosystem of US client revenues, and instead allowing US models - which recently found themselves on the defensive in response to much cheaper Chinese alternative - to take an even bigger lead for round 2? 

Tyler Durden Tue, 07/07/2026 - 15:20