Jennifer Lawrence Just Apologized for Her Offensive Butt Story

The government of New Zealand, along with the country’s major broadband providers are working to silence the hate speech created by the Australian terrorist accused in Friday’s Christchurch mosque attacks. Videos of the attacks, along with a 74-page, anti-Muslim, white supremacist manifesto have been repeatedly published, and removed, from various online platforms. And, in her latest show of leadership, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has vowed to deny the shooter the notoriety he clearly wanted by refusing to mention his name.

“He is a terrorist. He is a criminal. He is an extremist,” Ardern said in an address to Parliament on Tuesday, March 19. “But he will, when I speak, be nameless.”

“And to others, I implore you,” she added, “speak the names of those who were lost, rather than the name of the man who took them. He may have sought notoriety, but we in New Zealand will give him nothing. Not even his name.”

New Zealand’s three largest internet providers, Vodaphone NZ, Spark, and 2degrees, voiced a similar perspective in an open letter to Jack Dorsey (Twitter), Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook), and Sundar Pichai (Google, which owns YouTube), dated March 19.

“You may be aware that on the afternoon of Friday 15 March, three of New Zealand’s largest broadband providers, Vodafone NZ, Spark and 2degrees, took the unprecedented step to jointly identify and suspend access to web sites that were hosting video footage taken by the gunman related to the horrific terrorism incident in Christchurch,” the letter reads.

The letter goes on to acknowledge how, in the global marketplace, this decisive effort at content restriction marks an “extraordinary step” in limiting access to harmful material. Yet, the leaders behind these three New Zealand broadband companies remain steadfast in the belief that taking this step was “the right thing to do.” Their letter implores the three powerful tech CEOs to consider doing the same on their respective social media platforms, as a general practice.

“Although we recognize the speed with which social network companies sought to remove Friday’s video once they were made aware of it, this was still a response to material that was rapidly spreading globally and should never have been made available online,” the letter continues. “We believe society has the right to expect companies such as yours to take more responsibility for the content on their platforms.”

The Association of New Zealand Advertisers agreed, releasing a statement explaining that local businesses would consider pulling their advertising dollars from Facebook if the company didn’t take immediate action to silence hate speech.

“The events in Christchurch raise the question — if the site owners can target consumers with advertising in microseconds, why can’t the same technology be applied to prevent this kind of content being streamed live?” the group said in a statement, according to The New York Times.

In response, Facebook VP and Deputy General Counsel, Chris Sonderby penned a blog post on the company’s site, explaining how Facebook is working to remove videos like the one the shooter uploaded while the Christchurch attack was happening.

“We removed the attacker’s video within minutes of their outreach to us, and in the aftermath, we have been providing an on-the-ground resource for law enforcement authorities,” the post says. “We will continue to support them in every way we can. In light of the active investigation, police have asked us not to share certain details.”

The Facebook blog post also outlined how Friday’s video became viral (and out of Facebook’s hands) so quickly: a user of the website 8chan posted a link to a copy of the video to a file sharing site before Facebook was even notified of the video’s existence. Sonderby also writes that the company helped other social networks identify the video to get it removed, and have been working in conjunction with the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT) to be proactive about curbing terror and extremism online.

(Photo by Hagen Hopkins/Getty)

The Trump administration has been quietly working behind the scenes to create a proposal that would use social media to target people receiving federal disability payments,according to theNew York Times. Under the proposal, the federal government would use social media sites like Facebook and Twitter to look out for posts that would call into question people’s ability to work.

“There is a little bitty chance that Social Security may be snooping on your Facebook or your Twitter account,” Robert A. Crowe, a lawyer from St. Louis who has worked with Social Security claimants, told the Times. “You don’t want anything on there that shows you out playing Frisbee.”

In a 2018 budget request, Social Security asked for additional funding to look into expanding its already-existing social media monitoring. Its goal is to find fraudsters among the nation’s more than 10 million benefits recipients, who could ostensibly be bilking the system of millions of dollars. Currently, Social Security only investigates social media in rare cases where a file has been flagged and they want to further investigate whether a claim is fraudulent.

Other government agencies have already endeavored to use social media to track non-residents, visitors, and immigrants. Back in 2017, the Department of Homeland Security announced its intent to use social media monitoring to screen immigration and visa applicants for content it may deem ineligible for US entry. And in 2018, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a Freedom Of Information request to find out how Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the DHS were collecting, and interpreting, content from social media sites.

Although there have been verifiable instances of people utilizing Social Security benefits fraudulently (such as the 57-year-old Louisiana man who was recently ordered to pay back $134,000 in bilked benefits), fewer people altogether have been relying on SSDI in recent years. Applications for new users were down 29 percent last year, per the Times.

The Times also reports that, in November, Social Security requested a rule change that would deny benefit recipients charged with fraud a guaranteed in-person court case, and instead offer a video conference hearing in its place. Critics of this proposal worry that the change would be inefficient and undermine individuals’ right to due process.

Proposed changes are all the more puzzling given that the Social Security system is, in fact, one of the most efficiently-run government bodies working today. According toSlate, although in-power Republicans have been open about their desire to chip away at Social Security, the program’s administrative costs barely factor into the federal budget at all due to a huge funding surplus in the trillions of dollars.

Congress doesn’t even manage funds for the administration of the program. Instead, it limits how much of the surplus and dedicated revenue the Social Security Administration can use for running the program (hence the spending request on social media monitoring). But since Republicans began their eight-year control of the House in 2010, the party has incrementally restricted how much money the program is allowed to spend, while canceling or significantly decreasing programming allowances.

Whether or not SSDI claimants will be permanently placed under scrutiny remains to be seen. But if the administration deems this use of tracking a success, it could mean the beginning of social media monitoring for the rest of us, too. It could also pave the way for private companies to begin tracking staff in ways that could lead to greater power imbalances and diminished transparency in the workforce.

Then, of course, there’s the fact that social media doesn’t always give us a picture of reality that’s, well, real. “Social media sites are not exactly clear and reliable evidence,” Michael J. Astrue, the last Senate-confirmed Social Security commissioner, told a hearing in 2012. He stepped down in 2013.

Astrue argued for more (and better trained) fraud investigators instead, reminding the hearing how false news easily spreads online. He quipped: “Facebook puts up phony websites under my name all the time.”

(Photo by BSIP/UIG via Getty Images)

Mariska Hargitay is the woman of the hour anywhere she goes, with her iconic Law & Order: SVUrole as Olivia Benson under her belt for the last 25 years. The character is an absolute advocate to women — and assault victims of any gender — through her words, actions, and powerful convictions of each perpetrator on the show. She takes great care with her victims and pursues perpetrators with fervor, and slowly as you watch the show..the line blurs between Olivia and Mariska.

This isn't anything new — just recently Mariska literally stopped production on the show to help a child (who mistook her for an actual police officer) find her mom. It's just who Mariska is. She walks the walk and talks the talk — including during her speech at Variety's Power of Women's Power of Women event.

Image via NBC Universal

As a Power of Women honoree, Mariska was recognized in regards to her work as an advocate for sexual assault survivors. She took the stage and used her platform to discuss rape and assault conviction reversals, shining a light on the recent overturned ruling in Harvey Weinstein's landmark NYC case. Here's what she said:

Today I want to talk about reversing convictions, and more specifically I want to talk to you about how impossible it is to reverse mine. It’s impossible to reverse my conviction that survivors matter. It is impossible to reverse my conviction that what happens to us matters, and that our society must respond to survivors with a more a compassionate, holistically, deeper, and more nuanced understanding of what healing means.

It is impossible to reverse my conviction that after a trauma, survivors can reclaim lives of hope, of possibility, of audacious risk, beautiful intimacy, and glorious, glorious abundant joy. And I stand before you as evidence of that statement.

It is impossible to reverse my conviction that we must listen to survivors as experts on what justice means. It is extraordinary how little their voices are consulted, let alone incorporated, in the process of deciding how to repair harm. Justice is not a one-size-fits-all journey.

It is impossible to reverse my conviction that patriarchal impunity has to end. Patriarchal impunity is when a male-dominated system exempts perpetrators from punishment. Studies show that only 20% of all rape cases in the U.S. are reported to the police, and that between 5 and 0% of all rapes result in a guilty plea or a conviction. So why do 80% of victims not report? Because they're met with a system that grants impunity to perpetrators; a system that blames victims; a system that accepts only those victims who are experienced as "real" rape; a system that completely misunderstands the neurobiology of trauma, which causes behavior in women that doesn't fit the picture of how a "real victim" would act.

Is that change needed that victims should just pull themselves together? Just buck up and report anyway? No. No, it's the system that receives them that needs to change

It is impossible to reverse my conviction — and the conviction of my extraordinary team, The Joyful Heart — that the backlog of untested rape kits can be brought to zero; that the testing of all new kits must be mandated; that we need a statewide kit tracking system; and that survivors have the right to access the status of their kits.

It is impossible to reverse my conviction that grammar — yes, grammar — that we use when we speak about rape must change. In the sentence, "A woman is raped," there's a crime and there's a victim, but there's no perpetrator. Where's the perpetrator? Where is he? Statistically, as we know, most likely he's walking free. He's so free that he doesn't even appear in the language about the crime that he committed. Is that not extraordinary? It's extraordinary that in the very grammar, the perpetrator goes free. Reintroducing perpetrators in the language of rape will make some very unwieldy grammar, but that's the nature of change. It's unwieldy, it's messy, it's uncomfortable, but it's necessary.

Image via NBC Universal

Hargitay continued on in her prolific speech to describe that rape shouldn't be considered a "crime of passion" because it's "not simply the next step in the trajectory of his passion" when a man takes a consensual hookup too far and assaults a woman against her will. She stated that it's "an exercise of power," doubling down that the language we use is important.

The speech went on to address that rape is both about power and control, as a "construct" that was "built, and assembled, and reinforced over time." She noted that there are people with these positions of power — and she specifically called out those in the entertainment industry — that could make a difference and aligned themselves to victims and survivors.

After this and some other remarks, Hargitay specifically called out the Weinstein conviction reversal. She said:

I do want to say something about the Harvey Weinstein conviction, specifically about the reason that it was overturned: too many women's voices. Too many women's voices were allowed to speak. Hallelujah! Amen! I can't imagine anything more beautiful than that. The Daily podcast episode talked about how it was so risky for the prosecution to have that many women testify. Risky to let women speak? You're damn right it is!

Too many women speaking brings change. Too many women speaking shakes the establishment. Too many women means we get listened to more, and people might actually hear what we have to say. Look what happened when women started saying just two words, right? Me too — just as an example — a tidal wave of change. Me too.

And then of course, there was the response: the Me Too Movement. The backlash. The examination of whether the changes that have come are lasting, or are even positive. Of course there's a backlash! What did they expect? For women to speak repeatedly, loudly, together, with a purpose — for there to be no backlash? The backlash is evidence of how powerful those voices were, how powerful those voices ARE.

Follow us on Facebook for more celebrity and pop culture news.

Header image via NBC Universal