PAIRINGS: This is gen, but there are a few minor mentions of various pairings.
SUMMARY: Sequel to Rascals and Rascals II. The continued adventures of Sam, Martouf, Lantash, Freya, Anise, and Daniel, after they have been turned into children.
SPOILERS: Up to early/mid season 10 of SG-1, or there about.
NOTES: Mostly as canon, except all the Tok'ra are just fine! I got inspired by the Star Trek: TNG episode 'Rascals' to write the first installment, and I just found I had more ideas for the story! Some OOC'ness and a little cracky at times.
NOTES 2: You do NOT need to read Rascals I and II first. All you need to know is that Sam, Martouf, Lantash, Daniel, Freya, and Anise were transformed into little children by an alien device. They now live at Stargate Command, and O'Neill, Teal'c, and sometimes Janet, are looking after them.
"Thank you for coming to play with us!" Freya said, happily throwing her arms around Cassandra.
"Yes, thank you so much!" Sam, Daniel, and Martouf exclaimed, running to hug Cassandra as well.
"Yeah, well. I didn't have much else to do," Cassandra said, then smiled fondly at the children. She did like them, and it was not their fault Janet had been called away.
"Oh, and will you make hot cho-colate, Cassandra?" Freya looked up at her, while making her best puppy eyes. "Please?"
Cassandra grinned, not surprised by the request. "I suppose that can be arranged... so, do you guys want to help me make that hot chocolate - and bake a cake? You know, the yummy chocolate cake, which Janet usually makes?"
Janet had been looking after the kids while O'Neill and SG-1 had gone on an important mission. An extremely important mission, to try and rid the Galaxy of the escalating Replicator plague.
Since O'Neill was now a General, and in command of the SGC, a replacement had been found for SG-1. Teal'c was now the only 'original' member left of SG-1, with the other members being the Tok'ra Soltof/Gimbad, Hailey - and currently also Colonel Sanderson. The latter was a recent addition which O'Neill still did not feel sure about, and who was still only in a temporary position.
O'Neill and the others had returned a short time earlier. They had been successful and had managed to kill off the Replicators. Anubis seemed to have disappeared as well, though no one knew where he had gone. They would just have to hope he was gone for good.
Jacob and Selmak had joined the mission some time before, and they, together with the Goa'uld Ba'al - had succeeded in reprogramming an Ancient weapon at Dakara, so it killed all the Replicators.
However, something was not well with Jacob and Selmak, and Janet had been called in to look at him, since she was not only the Chief Medical Officer of the base, but also host to the Tok'ra healer Rhiva. Hopefully, they would be able to figure out what was wrong with Jacob/Selmak, and cure them.
Janet had called Cassandra a short time ago, telling her to come and look after the children, while she went back to the base. She was not to tell the kids anything about what had happened, other than that the mission had been a success.
Cassandra had been on her way out the door, to go out and have fun with some of her friends, whom she went to college with, so she had not been too happy. She had agreed, though. She liked the children, and no longer felt it weird that the Sam and Daniel she had known, were now little kids.
After spending the whole afternoon with the children in Janet's house, Cassandra drove them back to the base. The threat from the Trust was considered minimal right now, but it was still safest for them to stay at the base most of the time.
"Promise you'll come back soon?" Sam pleaded, when they had all eaten dinner in the mess hall, and Cassandra was on her way to leave.
"Sure, honey, I promise," Cassandra said, smiling at her.
"Then maybe we can build a fortress together out of LEGO, and we can show you how fast we can run on roller skates, and, and we have a newcartoon we got from Jack!" Daniel exclaimed, eagerly.
"Oh, and I have drawn a picture for you - and Lantash have made one too!" Martouf told her.
"Are you sure you have to leave already? Perhaps you can stay a little longer?" Anise looked hopeful.
"Sorry." Cassandra smiled, apologetically. "I really have to go. I have something important to do tonight, but I promise to come see you soon. Now, go to your room and play, okay?"
O'Neill sighed as he quietly walked into the room where the children were playing, stopping just inside the door. They all looked so happy, and he did not want to tell them - and Sam in particular - what he had come to say.
He spent a few moments looking at them. They had built some sort of large fortification out of LEGO, and seemed to be completely occupied with setting up a large number of small figures, who appeared to be attacking the fortification. They were so focused on what they were doing, that it took several minutes before any of them noticed he was there.
Martouf looked up, and directly at him, then smiled widely. "O'Neill! You must come see this!" He pointed eagerly at the construction.
Sam, Daniel, and Anise looked up as well, spotting O'Neill. They all smiled happily, and greeted him.
"Wow, that really does look nice. What's it supposed to be?" O'Neill asked.
"It's the attack on Dakara - when the Free Jaffa took it from Ba'al," Anise told him. "We heard about it - but only a little."
"Yes, can you tell us more? How did it go?" Daniel asked, eagerly.
O'Neill sighed deeply. "The Jaffa did take Dakara, but... well, a lot of other stuff happened to."
Teal'c stepped through the door at that point, bowing his head in greeting. "Hello."
"Teal'c!" Sam exclaimed. "You can tell us all that happened, right?"
"Indeed. There is much to tell. It was a great battle - much more so than anticipated." He looked at O'Neill.
"However, there's something you need to know first. Carter, we didn't tell you before, but your dad was there with us - and I don't think we'd have made it without him."
Seeing the change in his mood, Sam became very concerned. "Did something happen to him?"
"Is Jacob all right?" Martouf asked, worried.
"He wasn't wounded, but... Selmak's not feeling so good right now. The doctors are looking at her right now." He saw the children's terrified expressions. "Now, don't worry. You know how good Janet and Rhiva are. I'm sure they'll figure out what's wrong, and then fix it, in no time."
"I didn't think symbiotes could get sick." Daniel looked worried, but sceptical.
"Symbiotes are never sick!" Anise said with conviction.
"I agree," Lantash said, after having gotten control from Martouf. "If Selmak is indeed unwell, she must have been exposed to something horribly poisonous. You must take us to her."
"How is my dad doing? I need to see my dad now!" Sam insisted.
"Listen, sweeties, Jacob and Selmak are in good hands. You know Janet and Rhiva would never let anything bad happen to them." O'Neill tried to reason.
"I want to see my dad! Now!" Sam stomped her foot. "I need to see him... I... what if he's dying, and...and..." she sniffled. "I must go see him, please..." she started crying.
"You made Samantha cry!" Lantash said angrily at O'Neill, throwing his arms around Sam and hugging her.
"Bad Jack!" Daniel insisted, glaring at O'Neill and embracing Sam as well.
Anise hurriedly threw herself at the others, trying to hug them all.
O'Neill sighed and gave Teal'c a long-suffering expression.
Several hours later, Janet and Rhiva agreed to let the children visit Jacob for a short time.
While the children paid a very subdued and teary visit to Jacob, Janet/Rhiva took O'Neill and Teal'c aside and told them what they had learned.
They had made a large number of tests on Selmak, but had been unable to determine what was wrong with her. She was currently in a coma, and according to Jacob, she had been getting weaker for some time.
Rhiva and Janet had discussed what could be wrong with Selmak, as well as ways to try and treat her.
There was a number of treatments that could be used to strengthen a symbiote, temporarily increase its ability to heal, or help it filter out poison. There was also the healing device, but those were the only options usually used when treating symbiotes. They were immune to all known naturally occurring diseases, as well as to most poisons.
Rhiva had both scanned Selmak, and taken a blood sample. She had found no indication Selmak had been poisoned.
While Selmak was the oldest of the Tok'ra, she was not actually old. At just over 2000 years, she was actually still quite young for a symbiote. She was also the smallest adult symbiote Rhiva knew of, but examinations had been made of her previously, and her size meant nothing for her health or ability to heal either herself or her host.
In short, neither Janet, nor Rhiva, could find any reason why Selmak was sick, nor why she was still getting weaker, despite their attempts to strengthen her with Tok'ra drugs. It was a complete mystery, and very worrying.
"How can Selmak be sick?" Sam exclaimed. "Aren't you guys supposed to be able to cure everything?"
"We are," Lantash said. "Well, almost," he admitted.
"There are some poisons that are difficult," Anise agreed.
"Some the Goa'uld have made that way," Lantash added.
"We need to help dad and Selmak. If the adults don't know how, we must fix this!" Sam insisted.
"We will think of something, Samantha," Lantash promised.
"So Jacob and Selmak could've been poisoned by a Goa'uld?" Daniel wondered.
"Maybe." Lantash frowned, trying to think of when it could have happened. "Damn it's difficult to ac-cess some memories!" He looked angry.
"It's the same for all of us." Daniel looked despondent. "They say it will come back when we grow up."
"Yes, but I need to know now!" He pressed his hands together in fists.
"Who'd do it?" Daniel tried.
"Nirrti," Anise said with conviction. "She uses poisons."
"Or Sokar," Lantash suggested. "Netu! Jolinar was poisoned by Sokar."
Sam looked distant for a moment, trying to remember. "Yes... some really bad stuff. Something that made her weak, and heal badly. For months, I think."
Lantash nodded. "I remember. Sokar used it to..." He knitted his brows as he tried to remember. "He used it to make symbiotes have a hard time healing their hosts - and themselves. During... tor-ture. To weaken them... make them talk."
"Like that nasty, uh, blood of Sokar thingie?" Daniel asked.
"No, while bad, that ones not deadly... and it filters out over weeks, at most." Lantash told him. "We exa-mined the effects. After Netu."
"Jolinar had gotten it. The weak... ening drug, I mean. But she got well," Sam said.
"Yes... the effect of the drug, ah, Sha'kek... will slowly dis-appear. Over years. Even after it is no longer de-tec-table, it will affect the symbiote." He frowned. "There's a medicine to ease the effects. Jolinar got it... but so did Selmak. Because she was given the drug too."
Sam nodded slowly. "Yes, but there's something..." She stomped her foot, frustrated. "I can't remember! Jolinar... she knew something. About Selmak."
"Yes, duh!" Sam stuck out her tongue at him. "Of course!"
"Jolinar once told me... that Selmak was poisoned as a child," Lantash said, slowly.
"Yes! That's it! Her Jaffa - and the other Jaffa in that unit - they were ex-posed to... to poison gas. Killed them all, except Selmak and her Jaffa." Sam frowned. "They were so sick for such a long time. They lived, but Selmak didn't get much bigger after that, even if she was only a few years at the time it happened."
"It stopped her phy-sical de-velopment?" Anise asked, curious.
"Partially. Didn't affect her otherwise though," Sam said. "But she kept it secret."
"Maybe it made her more sus... sus-ceptible to some drugs. Like the one Sokar used. Sha'kek," Lantash suggested.
"We need to tell Janet. Now!" Sam exclaimed.
They ran off to find Janet and Rhiva.
With the information that Selmak was possibly suffering from an increased reaction to Sha'kek - a drug administered to her by Sokar, several years ago - Janet and Rhiva attempted to treat her by giving her more of the Tok'ra medicine that was used to treat exposure to Sha'kek.
They could not detect the presence of it in her system, but now when they knew what to look for, they could see that the weakening Selmak was experiencing now, was similar - if much more pronounced - to what was seen after a heavy exposure to Sha'kek.
Some hours after treatment began, Selmak stopped deteriorating, and slowly began to recover. It was almost a day later, before she awoke from her coma, very surprised to be alive.
She had not realized her illness could have been caused by an aftereffect to Sha'kek - nor that she would be that much more susceptible to it than other symbiotes, since she had never noticed any difference between herself and other symbiotes, except for her smaller size.
Janet and Rhiva would be continuing to monitor Selmak regularly over the next couple of years, to see if she would need further treatment, but they did not think so.
When almost a week had passed, Janet/Rhiva finally agreed to discharge Jacob/Selmak from the infirmary. At that point they were going stir-crazy, and driving everyone else insane as well. Neither of them did well being locked up like that, especially since they felt they no longer needed to be in the infirmary.
The children were both extremely relieved and very proud they had been able to help, and insisted it was necessary to celebrate Selmak's recovery - with a large chocolate cake and plenty of lemonade.


Copy the private key file (id_rsa) to windows computer using usb or another method what ever is good for you.
Select the file name id_rsa (private key file not the public one). Make sure to change the "Files of Type" option to "All Files (*.*).
Passphrase is a kind of password on keys. Select "Yes" if you dont want want any password on ssh keys. If you select no you have to remember this password all the times.


text:
Q: How to avoid unnecessary double quotation (") in fputcsv? I am going to export an output of a query in a text file (not CSV file) via PHP using fputcsv function, but when I open the text file, extra double-quotes (") are added at the start & end, and also in the middle:
"SET: NEID=35;"
"ADD OPDNAL:ENTR=571,DIGIT=""703901943"",NANNAT=ALL,NAME=""CallingFilter"",RATIO2=0;"

This is the result that I want:
SET: NEID=35;
ADD OPDNAL:ENTR=571,DIGIT="703901943",NANNAT=ALL,NAME="Calling Filter",RATIO2=0;

My code is as below:
$sql="select 'SET: NEID=35;' as ACC_OFFNET from dual
          union all
          SELECT ACC_OFFNET FROM JLD_ADD WHERE ACC_OFFNET NOT IN (SELECT ACC_OFFNET FROM JLD_ADD_BK)
          union all
          select 'syn' as ACC_OFFNET from dual";

$result = odbc_exec($connect_raidprd, $sql) or die("Couldn't execute query! ".odbc_errormsg());

$date=date('Y-m-d H:ia',time());
$update = str_replace(':','-',$date);

$filenameJLD = "JLD-ADD-". $update.".csv";

$handle = fopen($filenameJLD, 'w+');

while ($row =odbc_fetch_array($result)) {
    fputcsv($handle,array($row['ACC_OFFNET']));
}

// Finish writing the file
fclose($handle);
odbc_close($connect_raidprd);

Alternatively, is it possible for fwrite to accept array as the argument?

A: I think this is what you are looking for. This will give you clean Oracle SQL output. Test this in Oracle SQL first, simply copy, paste and run. Then add this to your PHP and enclose this in " if required. I'm not into PHP, not sure how it works there:
SELECT 'select ''SET: NEID=35;'' as ACC_OFFNET from dual
    union all
    SELECT ACC_OFFNET FROM JLD_ADD WHERE ACC_OFFNET NOT IN (SELECT ACC_OFFNET FROM JLD_ADD_BK)
    union all
    select ''syn'' as ACC_OFFNET from dual;'
 FROM dual
/

Output - this query will run in Oracle Sql and will not add any double quotes:
    select 'SET: NEID=35;' as ACC_OFFNET from dual
    union all
    SELECT ACC_OFFNET FROM JLD_ADD WHERE ACC_OFFNET NOT IN (SELECT ACC_OFFNET FROM JLD_ADD_BK)
    union all
    select 'syn' as ACC_OFFNET from dual;

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


IRCAM, the Institute for Research and Coordination in Acoustics/Music directed by Frank Madlener, is one of the world's largest public research centers dedicated to both musical expression and scientific research. This unique location where artistic sensibilities collide with scientific and technological innovation brings together over 160 collaborators.
IRCAM's three principal activities — creation, research, transmission — are visible in IRCAM's Parisian concert season, in productions throughout France and abroad, and in two annual rendezvous: ManiFeste that combines an international festival with a multidisciplinary academy and the Vertigo forum that presents technical mutations and their tangible effects on artistic creation.
Founded by Pierre Boulez, IRCAM is associated with the Centre Pompidou, under the tutelage of the French Ministry of Culture. The mixed STMS research lab (Sciences and Technologies for Music and Sound), housed by IRCAM, also benefits from the support of the CNRS and Sorbonne University.


Blown, multicolored mosaic, 46mm x 40mm discs; handmade by our Murano Glass Master, per our request. These blown beads are large, but lightweight, and are a great shape for your jewelry designs. For additional information, Please read the introduction & look at the photo, at the beginning of the "Blown Bead" category.


text:
Uma região vinícola é uma área geográfica para o cultivo e coleitas de videiras em grande escala, a fim de produzir seus sumos derivados como suco, vinho e passa.

As vinícolas atualmente são equipada com as últimas novidades da tecnológicas, tanto na colheita, prensagem e mesmo no processo de vinificação, que é o resultado do esforço de viticultores para a expansão no setor vitivinícola.

Setor vitivinícola

África
 África do Sul

Américas
 Argentina
 Província de Mendoza
 Província de Salta
 Brasil
As primeiras vinícolas brasileiras foram introduzidas pelos imigrantes portugueses, nos estados do Nordeste, em 1756, por ordem do Marquês de Pombal. Na década de 1960 as maiores vinícolas foram introduzidas nas serras do Rio Grande do Sul, incluindo também os outros estados do sul e sudeste.

Os principais estados são:
Bahia
 Minas Gerais
 Paraná
 Pernambuco
 Rio Grande do Sul
 São Paulo
 Santa Catarina
 Vale dos Vinhedos
 Região do Médio São Francisco
 Campanha Gaúcha

 Canadá
 Chile
 EUA
 Califórnia
 México
 Uruguai
 Venezuela

Europa

 Áustria: As regiões vinícolas da Áustria somam 45.533 hectares (dados de 2009) de área de cultivo e se dividem nas seguintes regiões:
 Região vinícola Baixa Áustria: Carnuntum, Kamptal, Kremstal, Thermenregion, Traisental, Wachau, Wagram e Weinviertel
 Região vinícola Burgenland: Eisenberg, Leithaberg, Mittelburgenland, Neusiedlersee e Rosalia
 Região vinícola Estíria: Südsteiermark, Vulkanland Steiermark e Weststeiermark
 Região vinícola Viena
 Região vinícola Bergland

 Alemanha: As regiões vinícolas da Alemanha somam 102.000 hectares (dados de 2005) de área de cultivo e se dividem nas seguintes regiões:
 Ahr
 Baden
 Franken
 Hessische Bergstraße
 Mittelrhein
 Mosel (até 2006 Mosel-Saar-Ruwer)
 Nahe
 Pfalz (até 1993 Rheinpfalz)
 Rheingau
 Rheinhessen
 Saale-Unstrut
 Sachsen
 Württemberg
 Bulgária
 Croácia
 Chipre
 Espanha
 Jerez, Rioja
 França
 Bordeaux: Pomerol, Sauternes, St-Émilion, Medóc, Graves.
 Borgonha: Chablis, Yonne, Côte D'or(Nuit), Côte D'or(Beune) Beaujolais, Mâconnais, Challonnaise.
 Champagne: Valée de La Marne, Côte des Blancs, Montagne de Reims.
 Rhône: Cotes Rotie, Condrieu, Crozes Hermitage, Hermitage, Beaumes de Venise, Châteuneuf du Pape, Cotes du Rhone.
 Loire: Muscadett, Anjou, Vouvray, Saumur, Pouilly-Fumé, Sancerre.
 Languedoc: Fitou, Corbiéres, Minervois, St-Chinia, Coteaux du Languedoc.
 Provence,
 Madiran
 Alsácia
 Córsega
 Geórgia
 Grécia
 Hungria
 Itália
 Piemonte, Lombardia, Emilia-Romagna, Vêneto, Ligúria, Marches, Toscana, Sardenha
 Luxemburgo
 Moldávia
 Polônia
 Portugal:
 Região do Vinho Verde (Minho)
 Trás-Os-Montes
 Douro
 Távora-Varosa
 Dão
 Bairrada
 Beira Interior
 Lisboa
 Tejo
 Península de Setúbal
 Alentejo
 Algarve
 Madeira
 Açores
 Reino Unido
 República da Macedônia
 República Tcheca
 Romênia
 Rússia
 Sérvia
 Eslováquia
 Eslovénia

 Suíça: As regiões vinícolas da Suíça somam 14.841 hectares (dados de 2008) de área de cultivo e se dividem nas seguintes regiões:
Cantão do Valais: Fully, Saxon, Saillon, Chamoson, Ardon, Vétroz, Conthey, Savièse, Sion, Grimisuat, Ayent, Lens, Miège, Venthône, Sierre, Salgesch, Varen.
Cantão de Vaud: La Côte, Lavaux, Chablais, Nord Vaudois
Genebra: Choully, Satigny, Peissy, Russin, Dardagny, Lully, Bardonnex, Cologny, Jussy, Choulex, Hermance, Céligny, Collex-Bossy
Região dos Três Lagos (Pays des Trois-Lacs)
Cantão do Ticino: [Giornico]], Malvaglia, Biasca, Verscio, Gordola, Tenero, Gudo, Giubiasco, Rivera, Morcote, Rovio, Stabio, Morbio, Pedrinate, Castel San Pietro
Cantão de Zurique: Freienstein-Teufen, Unterstammheim, Oberstammheim, Dachsen, Andelfingen, Flaach, Neftenbach, Seuzach, Eglisau, Weiningen, Meilen, Stäfa, Au, Wädenswil
 Cantão de Argóvia: Fricktal, Limmattal, Vale do Reuss, Schenkenbergertal, Seetal e Wildegg, Geissberg, Aaretal]]
Cantão de Lucerna: Wiggertal, Sempachersee/Surental, Seetal, Região do Lago dos Quatro Cantões
Cantão de Schaffhausen: Klettgau, Schaffhausen e região, Stein am Rhein, Buchberg, Rüdlingen
 Turquia
 Ucrânia

Ásia
 China
 Israel
 Palestina
 Índia
 Japão
 Líbano
 Síria

Oceânia
 Austrália
 Nova Zelândia

Ver também
 Uva
 Vinha
 Vinificação
 Região demarcada

Vinho
Regiões

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Biografia
David McVicar è nato a Glasgow e ha studiato recitazione al Royal Conservatoire of Scotland, diplomandosi nel 1989. La sua carriera da attore è stata di breve durata e McVicar ha cominciato a lavorare come regista a partire dagli anni novanta. Nel 2001 ha fatto il suo debutto alla Royal Opera House dirigendo due nuovi allestimenti di Rigoletto e Macbeth e da allora ha allestito numerose opere liriche al Covent Garden, tra cui Il flauto magico, Le nozze di Figaro, Faust, Aida, Salomè, Adriana Lecouvreur, Les Troyens, Andrea Chénier e La morte a Venezia.

L'attività di McVicar si è svolta prevalentemente nel Regno Unito, dove il regista ha lavorato anche in altri importanti teatri d'opera oltre alla Royal Opera House. Ha portato in scena Madama Butterfly, La traviata, Pelléas et Mélisande, La carriera di un libertino e Der Rosenkavalier alla Scottish Opera e Alcina, Tosca, Medea, La clemenza di Tito e Il giro di vite con l'English National Opera; molto proficuo è stato anche il sodalizio con il festival di Glyndebourne, per cui ha curato la regia di Carmen, La bohème, Giulio Cesare, I maestri cantori di Norimberga e Il ratto dal serraglio. È stato candidato due volte al Premio Laurence Olivier per la sua attività sulle scene londinesi: nel 2006 per La clemenza di Tito e nel 2008 per Il giro di vite e Agrippina.

Fuori dalla Gran Bretagna, McVicar ha lavorato spesso con la Wiener Staatsoper, per cui ha curato allestimenti di Adriana Lecouvreur, Ariodante, Falstaff e Tristano e Isotta. Inoltre ha diretto Les contes d'Hoffmann al Festival di Salisburgo, Agrippina al Gran Teatre del Liceu di Barcellona e Rigoletto, La traviata e Gloriana al Teatro Real. Per il Teatro alla Scala invece ha diretto I masnadieri, La Calisto, Adriana Lecouvreur e Les Troyens. Nel 2009 ha fatto il suo esordio alla Metropolitan Opera House con Il trovatore e da allora vi è tornato regolarmente con messe in scena di Anna Bolena, Maria Stuarda, Roberto Devereux, Cavalleria rusticana, Pagliacci, Norma e Tosca.

È dichiaratamente gay.

Onorificenze

Note

Collegamenti esterni

Persone che hanno fatto coming out
Knight Bachelor
Cavalieri dell'Ordine delle arti e delle lettere


Event Overview: The Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEx) is the Regulatory body for Chartered Legal Executives and operates alongside the Solicitors Regulation Authority and Bar Standards Board. Chartered Legal Executives are fully qualified lawyers doing a similar job to their solicitor colleagues. Chartered Legal Executives can become partners of law firms, run their own practices, employing other lawyers, can apply for judicial positions and Advocates have the same rights of audience as solicitors.
Advance CPD is the only training college in England & Wales to run a 12 week programme of study, commencing next September, taking you right up to your examinations in January 2014. The course is run at Bangor University. They are the CILEx No.1 college for results this Summer with 91% of their students being successful in their examinations.
If nothing else, you need to explore ALL of your options before deciding on your next-step career pathway.


text:
The Book of Esther: A Journey into the Saga of Jewish Survival in the Diaspora
with Rabbi Benjamin Segal, Wednesdays at 7:00 pm - 8:15 pm (Jerusalem); 12:00 pm (EST); 11:00 am (CST); 9:00 am (PDT), starting February 3rd 2021.
Why is the romantic tale of the Book of Esther such a popular topic? Is Esther a heroine or a victim? What accounts for the modern changes in interpretation? This course will explore the composition of the Megillah, the controversy regarding its inclusion in the Bible, its influence upon Jewish identity and, of course, the celebration of Purim.
Rabbi Benjamin J. Segal is an author and lecturer, living in Jerusalem. He is past president both of the Schechter Institute of Jewish Studies and of Melitz, the Centers for Jewish and Zionist Education.
He has written on biblical, Talmudic, Zionist and educational issues. His books include: A New Psalm: The Psalms As Literature; Kohelet's Pursuit of Truth: A New Reading of Ecclesiastes; The Song of Songs: A Woman in Love; Returning: The Land of Israel as Focus in Jewish History; Midrash: The Search for a Contemporary Past. His newest work on the Book of Esther is due to be published soon.
Tuition: USD 80 / ILS 260 per course
The weekly zoom link will be sent via email to all registered students.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
GBM Launches a Seven-day Peace Tent Initiative
On Tuesday18th September, the Green Belt Movement (GBM) launched a seven-day Peace Tent Initiative. Two peace tents were set up at Kencom bus stop and Freedom Corner in Uhuru Park. The initiative is aimed at promoting peace in Kenya as GBM prepares to mark the first anniversary since the passing of their founder and chair, Professor Wangari Maathai. Kenyans of all walks of life were invited to the tents to pledge their commitment for peace in Kenya.
The first day of the Peace Tent was a great success! The citizens of Nairobi were eager to make a commitment to promote peace in the country and an expectant crowd gathered to sign the pledge books. At around noon, Mr. Njoroge Ndirangu, the Provincial Commissioner (PC) for Nairobi, officially launched the 7-day initiative and made his pledge for peace. He addressed members of the public, urging them to come together and work to maintain peace throughout the country in the run-up to the general elections. He encouraged the crowd to make a pledge as a way of honouring Professor Maathai's tireless work to promote peace in Kenya and throughout the world. He also stated that the Kenyan government is actively working towards creating an environment where peace, reconciliation and development can be achieved.
District peace committees have been established in all 47 counties of Kenya. These committees bring together civil society, faith and community-based organisations, and community leaders to promote peace. Commenting on the recent conflict in the Tana Delta, PC Ndirangu said that peace needs to come from the people. "When dealing with conflicts over resources, the community must be engaged in the conflict resolution process," he stated. He also urged that peace studies be included in the school curriculum and for children to be taught nationalism, patriotism and the importance of peaceful co-existence from kindergarten.
A total of 3,019 signatures were collected on the first day of this Peace Tent Initiative. The tents will be in place until September 24th and we invite all members of the public to visit and make their pledge to actively promote peace in Kenya. As Wangari Maathai herself said, "It's the little things that citizens do. That's what will make the difference". Why not make your little thing a pledge for peace?


text:
A Janet Jackson Documentary is Coming This Month
By LaShauna Toomer|2022-01-10T10:24:09-05:00January 10th, 2022|Celebrities, Life + Culture, Sheen Magazine|0 Comments
Earlier this year, A&E and Lifetime announced the premiere date for Janet, a two-night, four-hour look into the pop star's vibrant life. "It's just something that needs to be done," Jackson says in the extended three-minute trailer.
In celebration of the 40th anniversary of her first album, Janet Jackson, the documentary will include home videos, exclusive, archival footage and celebrity interviews with stars including Teyana Taylor, Regina King and Samuel Jackson – to name a few.
"For her to open up – I'm flabbergasted," said rapper Q-tip. Typically known for her low profile, the Hollywood legend from Gary, Indiana, discusses her childhood, love life, motherhood and entertainment in the upcoming film.
According to Lifetime, Janet is "an intimate, honest and unfiltered look at her untold story." The story will air on A&E and Lifetime on Jan. 28 at 8 PM.
2022aedocumentaryjanet jacksonLifetimeregina kingsheen magazineteyana taylor


text:
Die Hamburg Maniacs waren eine American-Football-Frauenmannschaft aus Hamburg, die von 1991 bis 2006 Bestand hatte.

Geschichte
1991 gingen die Maniacs aus den Hamburg Dolphins und den HSV Tigers als Sparte des Hamburger Turnerbund v. 1862 e.V. hervor. In den ersten drei Jahren war die Erfolgsausbeute eher mager und auch der Versuch 1992 im Ligabetrieb zu bestehen scheiterte. Infolgedessen wurden der Trainer- und Betreuerstab aufgestockt, neue Spielerinnen geworben, die Trainingsqualität für die einzelnen Positionen verbessert und ein Trainingslager wurde eingeführt. 1994 waren die Hamburg Maniacs in Freundschaftsspielen und Scrimmages ungeschlagen, so dass man im Jahr 1995 erneut in den Ligabetrieb einstieg und die Saison als inoffizieller Meister der 2. Damenbundesliga (DBL2) abschloss.

Zur Saison 1996 wurde zweite Liga nach nur einem Jahr aufgelöst und alle Mannschaften wurden in die 1. Bundesliga (DBL) aufgenommen. Seitdem spielten die Hamburg Maniacs ununterbrochen in der Gruppe Nord um den Einzug in die Finalserie. 1996 und 1997 schlossen die Maniacs die regulären Saisons auf dem dritten Tabellenplatzes der Gruppe Nord ab und schieden anschließend gegen die Hannover Stampeders (1996) bzw. gegen die Nürnberg Hurricanes (1997) jeweils in der ersten Play-Off-Runde aus.

1998 gelang es, den zweiten Platz in der Nordgruppe zu erlangen, allerdings wurde diesmal das Halbfinalspiel gegen die Cologne Crocodiles Ladies verloren. Doch auch ein erster Meisterschaftssieg konnte 1998 gefeiert werden: Nachdem die Maniacs nach der Saison in der Halle trainiert hatten, machte sich dies beim Football-Ladies-Indoor-Cup bezahlt. Im hessischen Hanau gewannen sie gegen die heimischen Witches den deutschen Hallen-Meistertitel.

Das Jahr 1999 begann mit dem üblichen Trainingslager an der Ostsee. Motivierte neue Spielerinnen, ein fittes Team und ein beinahe-Sieg gegen die Konkurrentinnen der Berlin Adler Girls führten als Ergebnis zu einem zweiten Platz in der Gruppe Nord. Im Halbfinalspiel in den Play-Offs mussten sich die Maniacs allerdings mit 6:8 gegen die Nürnberg Hurricanes geschlagen geben.

Für das neue Jahrtausend hatte sich die hanseatische Mannschaft umso fester den Einzug ins Finale vorgenommen. Das harte Wintertraining endete im März mit einem Trainingslager im niedersächsischen Obernkirchen. Die Maniacs wurden in der Saison 2000 abermals Tabellenzweiter in der Nord-Gruppe und standen im Halbfinale abermals den Nürnberg Hurricanes gegenüber. Mit einem deutlichen 29:7-Sieg konnte dieses Mal allerdings der erste Finaleinzug gesichert werden. Dortige Gegnerinnen war die damaligen deutschen Rekordmeister der Berlin Adler Girls warteten, die das Spiel bis zu einem Endstand von 62:25 dominierten. Die Hamburg Maniacs wurden offizieller deutscher Vizemeister 2000.

Im Jahr 2001 hieß es zunächst Abschied nehmen von altgedienten Spielerinnen und Trainern. Mit einem verjüngten Team und vielen Rookies an Bord startete man wieder mit einem Trainingslager in Obernkirchen in die Bundesliga-Saison, die sie auf dem dritten Tabellenplatz beendeten, womit sie den Einzug in die Play-offs verpassten.
Zur Saison 2002 verließen weitere Teammitglieder die Mannschaft. Die Spiele wurden bis auf eines verloren, wodurch es erneut nur für den dritten Tabellenplatz reichte. Gleichzeitig wurden jedoch die Weichen für die Zukunft gestellt: man schloss sich den Hamburg Wild Huskies als neuem Haupt-Verein an, wodurch viele neue Spielerinnen integriert werden konnten.

Nachdem in der Saison 2003 noch das Halbfinale erreicht wurde, welches sie gegen die Munich Cowboys Ladies verloren, musste man sich ab 2004 zusätzlich noch lokal mit den Hamburg Amazons als neu gegründetes Hamburger Konkurrenzteam messen. Hinter den Amazons erreichten sie den zweiten Gruppenplatz und damit die Qualifikation für die Play-offs. Dort schieden sie gegen die Berlin Adler Girls aus.

Das Jahr 2005 war dagegen eines zum Vergessen für die Maniacs. Ohne einen einzigen Sieg in einem Saisonspiel, standen sie am Ende auf dem letzten Platz der Tabelle.

Während sie 2006 das 15-jährige Bestehen des Teams feierten, konnten sie sich außerdem erneut über eine erfolgreiche Saison freuen: durch eine Zweitplatzierung in der Gruppe qualifizierten sich die Maniacs für das Viertelfinale. Dortiger Gegner waren erneut die Nürnberg Hurricanes, die insbesondere die zweite Halbzeit dominierten und das Spiel mit 44:8 gewannen.

Im Anschluss an diese Saison lösten sich die Hamburg Maniacs auf.

Saisonbilanzen

Einzelnachweise

American Football (Frauen) in Deutschland
Gegründet 1991
Sportverein (Hamburg)
American-Football-Team aus Hamburg


Catholic Standards for Excellence from The Leadership Roundtable on Vimeo.
This forum is an online learning community for Catholics interested in, and making use of, best management practices in the Church. Based on the Leadership Roundtable's Standards for Excellence program this forum facilitates the sharing of ideas, practices, and management challenges.
How comfortable are your councils and staff leadership with disagreement and conflict?
We can all use a little push!
The opinions expressed by forum facilitators, bloggers, and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the National Leadership Roundtable on Church Management. The Leadership Roundtable is not responsible for the accuracy of any of the information supplied on forum and blog postings. The Webmaster reserves the right to exclude comments that are deemed to be objectionable, not relevant to the topic, or otherwise inappropriate.


text:
Home Nigerian News Politics Executive Order hasn't usurped court's powers, Presidency, AGF clarify
Executive Order hasn't usurped court's powers, Presidency, AGF clarify
Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami
The Presidency and the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr. Abubakar Malami (SAN), on Thursday rebuffed criticisms of the Executive Order 6 on forfeiture of assets linked to ongoing corruption cases.
The Executive Order was newly issued by President Muhammadu Buhari on July 5.
READ ALSO : Why I won't return to APC – Benue gov, Ortom
Clarifying what they tagged as the "reactions raising issues as to the legality or otherwise of the PEO", the Presidency and the minister said the Executive Order carried the same force as any other anti-corruption law made by the National Assembly and did not amount to the usurpation of the power of the judiciary as being allegedly speculated.
In a statement signed on their behalf and sent to our correspondent on Thursday, the Special Assistant to the President on Financial Crimes (AGF Office), Mr. Abiodun Aikomo, said the "subjective opinions and arguments advanced by any group or individuals cannot determine the validity or otherwise of the PEO".
They reiterated that the Executive Order 6 was made "to preserve suspected illicitly acquired assets from dissipation and from being available for usage, making it inimical to the fight against-corruption."
Allaying fears that it would usurp the powers of the judiciary, they said the Executive Order would not take away the power of the judiciary to determine "who is complicit in corrupt practices".
They also reiterated that the order was directed at relevant law enforcement agencies and did not ignore the need for them to obtain "appropriate court orders as may be necessary".
READ ALSO : Assassination attempt: Melaye stops constituency projects' inauguration, thanksgiving service


text:
Lockheed Martin Selects Blue Cedar to Secure its Universal Communications Platform™ (UCP™) Communicator Mobile App
Blue Cedar | Sep 13, 2017
Lockheed Martin to Distribute Blue Cedar Mobile Security Technology to its Defense, Aerospace, and First Responder Customers
SAN FRANCISCO, September 13, 2017 —Blue Cedar today announced that Lockheed Martin, a global security and aerospace company, has selected Blue Cedar's mobile security technology for inclusion in its Universal Communications Platform (UCP) mobile app, or UCP Communicator. The collaboration provides Lockheed Martin with a solution for UCP users that have both iOS and Android devices, who will for the first time be able to connect quickly and securely to deployed military, first responders, or remote commercial operations teams who require interoperability between multiple types of secure radio and cellular communications.
In a first for Blue Cedar, the company also announced that Lockheed Martin will distribute the Blue Cedar platform to its customers and prospects via solutions that meet a wide range of mobile security needs.
"We are pleased to have entered into this strategic relationship with Lockheed Martin," said John Aisien, chief executive officer of Blue Cedar. "We believe that mobile communications security starts by securing the app, and this unique approach meets the stringent requirements of the most security-conscious organizations, such as Lockheed Martin. Our relationship also demonstrates the versatility of Blue Cedar technology and is just one example of a wide range of powerful, potential applications for a variety of commercial and public sector markets."
Lockheed Martin's UCP integrates all types of fixed and mobile radio systems, enabling interoperability between multiple agencies and coalition force diverse communication and data systems. With Blue Cedar technology, it now enables consumer-grade smartphones to be used to extend and expand secure communications networks to users without access to radio equipment.
The collaboration between Blue Cedar and Lockheed Martin will allow users with commercial smartphones and tablets to download and launch the UCP Communicator app, which is inserted with Blue Cedar's layer of encryption and other security controls which are already included in the app. There is no need to write any security code—accelerating time to market, increasing ease of use, and protecting privacy for users.
The combined Lockheed Martin UCP products and Blue Cedar solution provides a number of benefits, including:
Simplicity: Users can use the devices they already have. Downloading and launching the app is easy—and users don't have to do anything else.
Security: The app meets mobile security requirements, such as FIPS 140-2 compliance, establishing a secure, encrypted connection and authenticates users for military-grade security.
Cost effectiveness: Users and organizations don't have to purchase additional specialized equipment to enable spontaneous communication.
"Blue Cedar supports our goal in providing our customers with an expanded communications capability to enhance interoperability and mission needs," said Jim Quinn, Lockheed Martin business development manager. "The app will provide critical security and encryption capabilities to UCP Communicator customers, giving them the latest mobile security and encryption technology available."
To learn more about Blue Cedar's security solutions for mobile apps, visit www.bluecedar.com.
About Blue Cedar
Blue Cedar transforms enterprise mobility with the industry's most innovative mobile security solution. By securing the app rather than the device, Blue Cedar gives enterprises robust, consistent protection of corporate data across both managed and unmanaged devices, without the cost, complexity, or risk to privacy of device-level security. Blue Cedar's "follow the app" security sets enterprises free to fully realize the benefits of secure mobility for both employees and customers. The company is privately held and headquartered in San Francisco. For information about Blue Cedar, visit www.bluecedar.com.
Media and Analyst Contact:
Patrick Corman
Corman Communications, LLC
+1-650-465-5973 (mobile)
patrick@cormancom.com


text:
Legi-Tech, Inc. v. Keiper
Rock Against Racism v. Ward
However, the method and extent of such regulation must be reasonable, that is, it must be the least intrusive…
News Sun-Sentinel v. Board of Cty.
This does not mean that the press cannot be subjected to generally applicable economic regulations, but that…
Full title:LEGI-TECH, INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. DAVID W. KEIPER, COMMISSIONER OF…
Court:United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Date published: Jul 5, 1985
766 F.2d 728 (2d Cir. 1985)
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
holding a state statute unconstitutional that permitted the general public to access a state-maintained database of pending legislation, but denied such access to "those entities which offer for sale the services of an electronic information retrieval system which contains data relating to the proceedings of the legislature"
Summary of this case from Amelkin v. McClure
Argued February 20, 1985.
Decided July 5, 1985.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York.
Bruce D. Sokler, Washington, D.C. (Thomas J. Casey, Terrence J. Leahy, Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky Popeo, P.C., Washington, D.C., of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant.
Harvey M. Berman, New York City (Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen. of the State of N.Y., Robert Hermann, Sol. Gen., O. Peter Sherwood, Deputy Sol. Gen., New York City, of counsel), for defendants-appellees.
Before VAN GRAAFEILAND, WINTER and PRATT, Circuit Judges.
WINTER, Circuit Judge:
This is an appeal from Judge Miner's denial of a preliminary injunction. The appellant, Legi-Tech, Inc., seeks to enjoin the defendants, officials of New York State, from denying it access to a state-owned computerized database that contains legislative information and is available through subscription to the general public. Legi-Tech's complaint, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1982), alleges an infringement of its rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. We conclude that the First Amendment may, under some circumstances, prohibit the state from denying Legi-Tech, an organ of the press, access to the database. However, the record on this appeal does not afford us sufficient information to resolve certain key factual issues. We therefore remand for further proceedings.
Legi-Tech is a California corporation that markets a computerized information retrieval service known as the "Legi-Tech System." This service offers to subscribers computerized legislative information concerning the New York and California legislatures. The information provided includes summaries of pending legislation, votes on bills, attendance and voting records of individual legislators, and campaign contributions to individual legislators. Legi-Tech's customers include lobbyists, news media, corporations, and governmental agencies.
Since 1984, the Legislative Bill Drafting Commission of the State of New York (the "Commission") has offered to the public a "Legislative Retrieval Service" known as LRS. Like the Legi-Tech System, LRS is a computerized database. LRS contains the full text of legislation pending in the New York Legislature, as well as summaries thereof and certain other information. It appears that the primary difference between the two services is that LRS offers the full text of New York bills, while Legi-Tech offers only summaries. Unlike Legi-Tech, LRS does not offer information about the voting and attendance records of, and campaign contributions to, individual legislators. LRS is limited to New York legislation, while Legi-Tech covers California as well.
Legi-Tech unsuccessfully attempted to subscribe to LRS when the latter was in its pilot stage, and again after it became available to the general public. On June 1, 1984, Legi-Tech brought a state court action for an injunction requiring the Commission to offer LRS to Legi-Tech on the same terms as offered to other customers. In response, New York enacted Chapter 257 of the New York Laws, the provision which is in issue in the instant case. It has not yet been officially codified.
Chapter 257 establishes a "Legislative Computer Services Fund" consisting of revenues derived from the sale of LRS or other data processing services or publications. It also provides that:
Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the legislature is hereby authorized to engage in the sale of any of the foregoing services, programs or materials to such entities as the temporary president of the senate and speaker of the assembly, in their joint discretion, deem appropriate, except those entities which offer for sale the services of an electronic information retrieval system which contains data relating to the proceedings of the legislature.
Legi-Tech is clearly within the prohibitory portion of the statute, and the Commission dutifully denied Legi-Tech a subscription to LRS. Legi-Tech then filed the complaint in the instant case. It charges, inter alia, that Chapter 257 is unconstitutional on its face and as applied, in that it denies Legi-Tech and others freedom of speech and of the press, the only claims pressed on this appeal. The complaint seeks a declaration that Chapter 257 is unconstitutional, preliminary and permanent injunctions, and damages.
The district court rejected Legi-Tech's claim on the grounds that Chapter 257 does not deprive Legi-Tech of access to legislative information or restrict its ability to publish such information. It perceived the issue as analogous to claims of right to televise or tape courtroom trials, which have been recently rejected by this court. Legi-Tech, Inc. v. Keiper, 601 F.Supp. 371, 375 (N.D.N.Y. 1984), citing Westmoreland v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 752 F.2d 16 (2d Cir. 1984); United States v. Yonkers Board of Education, 747 F.2d 111 (2d Cir. 1984). It viewed Legi-Tech as merely claiming a right to greater convenience in gathering legislative materials otherwise available, 601 F.Supp. at 375, and in effect as attempting to free ride on New York's financial support for the services provided by LRS. The district court concluded that Chapter 257 "is reasonable since it only seeks to protect the state's natural monopoly on computer supplied legislative information. Indeed, were the state not able to restrict access to LRS, competitors could easily retransmit the state's data at lower prices and thereby eliminate LRS entirely." Id. at 381.
We do not agree with the district court's legal theories for the reasons stated infra. However, because our own view of the law requires the development of certain factual matters, we remand for further findings.
This case arises out of advances in a developing technology and is governed neither by direct precedent nor by close analogue. It is important at the outset, therefore, to define with some care the relationship of the relief Legi-Tech seeks to the First Amendment's protection of freedom of speech and of the press.
The district court was, we believe, only partially correct in regarding Chapter 257 as limited to the regulation of access to information in a particular format. Because the sole reason for denying Legi-Tech access to LRS is Legi-Tech's ability and desire to republish it, the right of publication is also implicated. The effect on publication, moreover, may be more than trivial. For example, Chapter 257 may prevent Legi-Tech from publishing in a timely fashion the full text of pending bills in New York in a package with relevant political information such as voting records and campaign contributions.
We further note that information about legislative proceedings, and in particular, pending legislation, is absolutely vital to the functioning of government and to the exercise of political speech, which is at the core of the First Amendment. See Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 14, 96 S.Ct. 612, 632, 46 L.Ed.2d 659 (1976) (per curiam); Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U.S. 265, 272, 91 S.Ct. 621, 625, 28 L.Ed.2d 35 (1971); Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 218, 86 S.Ct. 1434, 1436, 16 L.Ed.2d 484 (1966).
Finally, we note that we are dealing in an area of rapidly developing technology and with novel and expanding forms of the exercise of the freedom of the press guaranteed by the First Amendment. Legi-Tech is currently the only entity that has been denied a subscription to LRS, but there is no reason to believe that this will long remain true. Legi-Tech and LRS use technology that is particularly well-suited to transmitting large amounts of rapidly-changing information. The ultimate sweep of Chapter 257 thus depends upon the development of that technology and of the commercial uses to which it may be put.
It is even now technologically possible to offer an "electronic newspaper" to subscribers who own personal computers. Such a service might transmit news items just as other services transmit stock market quotations or other information. If such a service included legislative information among its news items, it would fall within Chapter 257. On a more familiar level, a claim that the major wire services constitute "electronic information retrieval system[s]" that sometimes provide "data relating to ... the legislature" seems a colorable reading of the statute. It also seems obvious that Mead Data Corporation's "LEXIS/NEXIS" service and West Publishing Corporation's "WESTLAW" service, both familiar to most lawyers, do meet the statutory definition.
We take note of these matters, not because we intend to explore the application of Chapter 257 to such entities, but in recognition of the constitutional sensitivity of the issues raised by Legi-Tech's two-pronged challenge to Chapter 257. It claims that Chapter 257: (1) unconstitutionally discriminates between a state-owned member of the press, LRS, and other press organs by granting the former preferential access to pending legislation; and (2) unconstitutionally denies Legi-Tech equal access to LRS. We discuss these claims seriatim.
1. The Claim of Discriminatory Access to the Texts of Newly Introduced Legislation
Legi-Tech claims that Chapter 257 is unconstitutional because it, Legi-Tech, does not have the same access to the texts of newly introduced legislation as does LRS, and that this differential access, in conjunction with the prohibition against Legi-Tech's subscribing to LRS, is unconstitutionally discriminatory.
Because the procedural posture of this case limits us to a record containing only conflicting affidavits, we are unable to determine with precision the respective times at which and methods by which Legi-Tech and LRS receive printed copies of proposed legislation after it has been introduced. It appears to be undisputed that LRS automatically receives copies of newly introduced legislation as well as other legislative information through a process which is not available to Legi-Tech. Legi-Tech flatly asserts that LRS frequently publishes legislative information before it is publicly available in other printed form, and that the gap between LRS transmission and other public access is often days. This can be of considerable importance, particularly given the usual legislative rush at the end of a session. Legi-Tech further claims that on some occasions legislation is enacted before printed copies are available to the public but after transmission by LRS. The state disputes these assertions and also argues that such differential access, even if it exists, is irrelevant.
We are troubled by the state's assertion that even though LRS automatically receives newly introduced bills, Legi-Tech has comparable access because it may be able to obtain upon request a copy from bills' sponsors. We do not share the assumption that the anticipated helpfulness of individual sponsors is the equivalent of a process that automatically distributes newly proposed legislation.
We believe, however, this factual issue is of central importance. We perceive no merit in the proposition that government may accord a state organ of communication preferential access to information and deny to the private press the right to retransmit the information. We cannot agree with the district court that Chapter 257 "is reasonable since it only seeks to protect the state's natural monopoly on computer supplied legislative information." 601 F.Supp. at 381. There is nothing natural about the alleged monopoly in the instant case. The monopoly, if it exists, arises out of the combination of LRS' special access to information and Chapter 257's prohibition on competitors from having access to LRS database.
The evils inherent in allowing government to create a monopoly over the dissemination of public information in any form seem too obvious to require extended discussion. Government may add its own voice to the debate over public issues, Community-Service Broadcasting v. FCC, 593 F.2d 1102, 1110 n. 17 (D.C.Cir. 1978) (en banc), but it may not attempt to control or reduce competition from other speakers. Id.; cf. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 48-49, 96 S.Ct. 612, 648-649, 46 L.Ed.2d 659 (1976) (per curiam) (government may not restrict speech of some persons in order to enhance the relative voice of others). When the state creates an organ of the press, as here, it may not grant the state press special access to governmental proceedings or information and then deny to the private press the right to republish such information. Such actions are an exercise of censorship that allows the government to control the form and content of the information reaching the public. As previously noted, even the limited monopoly alleged here, if shown to exist, prevents the early publication of the complete text of proposed legislation from appearing in a package with information about voting records and campaign contributions.
The issue to be determined on remand with regard to this claim, therefore, is whether Legi-Tech can obtain printed copies of pending bills or other legislative information on substantially the same terms as LRS. Because the validity of a state statute is involved, we are loath to resolve this factual issue on the basis of the affidavits before us, particularly since the district court made no clear findings with regard to it.
2. The Claim of Equal Access to LRS
Legi-Tech also argues that, even if it were afforded the same access to newly introduced legislation as LRS, Chapter 257 is unconstitutional in that it denies to Legi-Tech, an organ of the press, the same access to LRS as is offered to the general public. The district court concluded that Legi-Tech was not denied a substantial right by Chapter 257 because it merely left Legi-Tech "to gather the information it seeks in a manner which it finds to be less convenient." 601 F.Supp. at 375. The court thus concluded that Legi-Tech's claims were not analogous to In re Application of The Herald Co., 734 F.2d 93 (2d Cir. 1984), which recognized a general right of access to pretrial courtroom proceedings, but more closely resembled cases such as Westmoreland and Yonkers. In Westmoreland a television network claimed a First Amendment right to televise judicial proceedings in certain circumstances. 752 F.2d at 21-24. Similarly, in Yonkers, a newspaper reporter asserted a First Amendment right to tape judicial proceedings. 747 F.2d at 112. Each of these cases thus involved a claim of right to a particular kind of access in addition to the general access afforded the public. In each case, we denied the claim.
We do not agree that the present case is closely analogous to either Westmoreland or Yonkers. Had the New York legislature not offered an LRS-type service at all, and had Legi-Tech claimed that offering such a service was constitutionally required, those cases might control. We face a different issue, however, for Chapter 257 denies to Legi-Tech the very access to information offered to the general public. Rather than seeking special access in addition to that enjoyed by the public, Legi-Tech seeks access equal to that offered the public.
Not surprisingly, there is support in the case law for the claim that the press has the same right of access to governmental proceedings as the general public. Estes v. Texas, 381 U.S. 532, 540, 85 S.Ct. 1628, 1631, 14 L.Ed.2d 543 (1965) (criminal trial). The present case differs from Estes, and the subsequent decision in Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 100 S.Ct. 2814, 65 L.Ed.2d 973 (1980) (plurality opinion) (press and public have right to attend criminal trials), because in those cases public access was a right whereas here no right exists to compel provision of a service such as LRS. New York thus argues that the lack of a constitutional right to a service such as LRS precludes any First Amendment claim from arising out of the legislature's operation of LRS. In effect it argues that because it can constitutionally refuse to provide LRS at all, it may discriminate in offering LRS so long as that discrimination does not violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
We do not agree that the discriminatory denial of access to an organ of the press can never affect First Amendment rights where access generally is not constitutionally mandated. The Supreme Court has squarely held that the government may not single out the press to bear special burdens, even if evenhanded imposition of the identical burdens would be constitutionally permissible. In Minneapolis Star Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue, 460 U.S. 575, 103 S.Ct. 1365, 75 L.Ed.2d 295 (1983), the Court held that taxing the press differently from other businesses violated the First Amendment. The dissent argued that, because taxation does not in itself infringe First Amendment rights, differential taxation is subject to scrutiny only under the equal protection clause. Id. at 598-600, 103 S.Ct. at 1379-1380 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting). However, the majority explicitly rejected this argument, which is identical to that pressed by New York in the instant case, and held that "singling out the press for taxation" violated the First Amendment. Id. at 585-86 n. 7, 103 S.Ct. at 1371-72 n. 7.
We do not think that the rationale of Minneapolis Star is limited to taxation. Should New York decide to deny access to LRS to newspapers and the broadcast media as well as Legi-Tech, that decision would surely face a most hostile scrutiny under the First Amendment. We say that because we believe it fairly obvious that the only purpose of such regulation would be to limit the dissemination of speech protected by the First Amendment, albeit only indirectly by limiting republication.
In Saxbe v. Washington Post Co., 417 U.S. 843, 94 S.Ct. 2811, 41 L.Ed.2d 514 (1974), the Court held that the Federal Bureau of Prisons could ban reporters from conducting interviews with specific inmates because the general public was not allowed access to specific inmates other than relatives, close friends, etc. The Court's approach strongly suggests that if the Bureau of Prisons decided to afford the general public broader access to inmates, it would have to permit the press the same degree of access even though the broader access was not constitutionally mandated.
Of course, that is not the issue before us, because New York claims that it is regulating access to LRS for reasons other than the suppression of speech, namely to prevent free riding on LRS' costly efforts. When government regulates speech in the name of an interest unrelated to the suppression of speech, the regulation will survive constitutional challenge "only if the governmental interest outweighs the burden and cannot be achieved by means that do not infringe First Amendment rights as significantly." Minneapolis Star, 460 U.S. at 586 n. 7, 103 S.Ct. at 1372 n. 7; see United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 376-77, 88 S.Ct. 1673, 1678-79, 20 L.Ed.2d 672 (1968). The Court in Minneapolis Star further noted that "differential treatment [of the press], unless justified by some special characteristic of the press, suggests that the goal of the regulation is not unrelated to suppression of expression." 460 U.S. at 585, 103 S.Ct. at 1371.
The district court identified as a "special characteristic" of Legi-Tech its role as a competitor of LRS. The court's argument, when unpacked, is that affording equal access to Legi-Tech would allow it to free ride on LRS' expenditures in rendering pending legislation suitable for electronic transmission. The effect of such free riding, it opined, would be to cause LRS to cease operation because the vast bulk of its subscribers would turn to Legi-Tech, which could offer all the services available from LRS as well as its other data at comparable or lower prices. LRS' demise would then diminish the information available to the public. See 601 F.Supp. at 381.
Our disagreement with the district court is not so much over its reasoning as over the application of that reasoning to Chapter 257. Viewed in its essentials, the argument is identical to that which justifies the existence of copyright laws in the face of the First Amendment, i.e. without protection from free riders, the incentive to compile and disseminate information would be destroyed. Harper Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 105 S.Ct. 2218, 2223, 85 L.Ed.2d 588 (1985). The unspoken premise of the copyright laws, however, is that the profit motive which is the incentive for creation is also a disincentive for suppression of the work created, a premise of doubtful strength in the case of government.
The profit motive's weakness where government is concerned is starkly evident in Chapter 257's own provisions, which prohibit potential retransmitters from subscribing to LRS rather than offering subscriptions to them at prices that eliminate the potential for free riding. To revert to the copyright analogy, LRS is refusing to license reproduction at any price even though reproduction would increase purchases of the product without reducing LRS' incentive to produce more information.
It is our view that, absent an attempt to modify Chapter 257 so that it conforms to its ostensible purpose of preventing free riding, the prohibition affecting Legi-Tech cannot be regarded as "unrelated to the suppression of speech." We cannot at this distance claim to discern ulterior motives underlying Chapter 257. Nevertheless, one effect of its prohibition on retransmittal is that the full text of legislation pending in the New York Legislature is not available at the present time in a computerized format that also catalogs campaign contributions to legislators, as well as their attendance and voting records. Similar effects diminishing the information available to the public will surely occur with the further development of the computerized format for news purposes.
We are assured by Legi-Tech that it makes no claim that LRS must allow those able and intending to retransmit LRS material to subscribe at the same price as those who have no such plans or ability. To the extent that concession means that Legi-Tech is willing to pay the true cost to LRS of its subscription, namely the revenue LRS will lose as a consequence of Legi-Tech's retransmission of LRS materials, we believe that LRS may not decline to offer subscription rights to Legi-Tech.
Counsel for the state has argued that establishing the price for retransmission rights is so complex as to be impossible. We agree that exact precision may not be achievable but believe that an adequate approximation, perhaps rough in the beginning but more exact over time, is within reach. LRS knows its own costs and has set a price for its present subscribers without difficulty. We cannot ignore, moreover, the ubiquitous role of government in regulating and setting rates in far more complex situations than this. We assume that Legi-Tech understands that our ruling anticipates its cooperation with New York authorities in providing whatever information about its operations is necessary to setting a reasonable price.
We thus recognize a limited right of access on Legi-Tech's part to LRS materials. We believe, however, that Legi-Tech has not, at this initial stage, proved an essential element of its claim. Although the parties made much at oral argument of the costs of converting printed material to a computerized format, the record, which consists largely of affidavits, provides little basis for us to make a judgment as to whether the costs of conversion of the materials offered by LRS are either necessary or significant. If these costs are either avoidable or de minimis, Legi-Tech's claim would fail for lack of any showing of harm. We cannot, therefore, reverse on this ground, although we trust that on remand a record will be developed to support appropriate findings.
Chapter 257 can be upheld, therefore, only if the district court on remand finds that Legi-Tech has access to the texts of proposed legislation on substantially the same terms as LRS and that the costs of converting those texts to a computerized format are neither avoidable nor de minimis. Both findings are necessary to Chapter 257's validity, because the elimination of a differential access to the texts of bills will not cure the discrimination in the offering of LRS to the general public but not to Legi-Tech.
Understandably, Legi-Tech has reminded us that urgency attends colorable claims that First Amendment rights are being infringed. We are mindful of that proposition but, given the importance of the unresolved factual issues outlined in this opinion and the sparseness of the present record, we must remand to the district court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
remanding for inquiry into feasible alternatives
Summary of this case from Rock Against Racism v. Ward
suggesting denial of press access to a public legislative database would face "hostile scrutiny" as singling out the press for a special burden
Summary of this case from Kallstrom v. City of Columbus
discussing Minneapolis Star
Summary of this case from News Sun-Sentinel v. Board of Cty.