– Based on the breathless commentary after the Supreme Court's oral arguments today, it might have seemed as if the court had already decided to rule against health care reform. Sorry to spoil the fun, but it's way too early for either side to think this is a done deal, writes Steve Kornacki at Salon. "All of this alarmism may well amount to nothing." Yes, Anthony Kennedy sounded skeptical about the individual mandate, for example, but Kornacki points to a detailed recap of arguments by Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog suggesting that Kennedy's opposition isn't as solid as thought. "That is where Tuesday’s argument wound up—with Kennedy, after first displaying a very deep skepticism, leaving the impression that he might yet be the mandate’s savior," writes Denniston. And don't be shocked if John Roberts ends up agreeing with him, he adds. "The court isn’t expected to rule for months, maybe not until late June," adds Kornacki in his post. "It’s entirely possible that the mandate will be thrown out, but it’s all still guesswork until then." Read his full column here. Or check out the audio recordings of the arguments for yourself here.

Expand this summary.

These files require installation and use of either RealPlayer software or Windows Media Player, which is available for free from RealNetworks or Microsoft. These file formats allows us to "stream" audio files to users, which means that you will begin hearing the files without having to wait for the entire file to download. (Note that to hear audio on your computer, your system must also have a sound card and speakers or earphones.)To get RealPlayer for: Windows To get Windows Media Player for: Windows * Mac users also can use Windows Media® Components for QuickTime ||||| Topics: War Room, Politics News

 The verdict is in: The individual mandate at the heart of President Obama’s healthcare law is not long for this world.

 At least that seemed to be the early consensus of the journalists who were allowed to witness the second day of Supreme Court arguments over the constitutionality of Obamacare on Tuesday. Even before the proceedings wrapped up, they began spreading the word that Obama’s solicitor general, Donald Verrilli, had seemed ill-prepared and incapable of defending the law against an onslaught of pointed questions from skeptical justices, and that the critical swing voter on the court – Anthony Kennedy – had all but stated that he considers the mandate unconstitutional.

 CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin branded the proceedings “a train wreck for the Obama administration” and predicted that “this law looks like it’s going to be struck down,” while Mother Jones’ Adam Serwer declared on Twitter that “If the justices decided the constitutionality of laws on performance, Obamacare would go down like a flaming zeppelin.” Mike Sacks of the Huffington Post said that opposition to the law seemed “almost unequivocal” from Kennedy, whom Toobin called a “lost cause” for the administration.

 It’s worth keeping in mind that all of this alarmism may well amount to nothing.

 The stakes of this case and the court’s notorious opacity encourage tea leaf-reading and overreaction. It’s clear from objective reports from inside the court that the administration was repeatedly put on the defensive by Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts. Along with Clarence Thomas, who rarely speaks but almost always sides with his fellow Republican-appointed justices, they form the court’s conservative majority – with Kennedy the most likely to break ranks. So it’s noteworthy that they (and Kennedy in particular) exhibited such aggressive skepticism. The individual mandate won’t stand unless at least one of them sides with the administration. |||||


News article:

A key Hawaii lawmaker considering an anti-prostitution bill says he and Honolulu police have agreed to get rid of a longtime exemption that allowed officers to have sex with prostitutes.

 State Sen. Clayton Hee, head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he and police agreed at a meeting Tuesday that the exemption ran contrary to popular opinion.

 Honolulu police said during the meeting that they're OK with making it expressly illegal for officers to have sex with prostitutes, as long as undercover officers can still say they'll have sex so they can make arrests.

 Honolulu police spokeswoman Teresa Bell told The Associated Press that officers have never been allowed to have sex with prostitutes under departmental rules, so making it illegal won't change how officers operate.

 "That's exactly what we wanted and how we've been conducting our investigations — with the verbal offer," Bell said.

 Bell said Hee met with officers who submitted written and oral testimony to a House committee earlier in the legislative session.

 The bill passed the House without a clause that would have made sex with prostitutes illegal for officers after police lobbied to have the language removed, arguing it would inhibit undercover investigations by giving criminals knowledge of what police can and cannot do.

 At a Senate hearing last week, lawmakers and members of the public expressed outrage at the exemption after the AP reported on police officers' lobbying to keep it unchanged. Hee vowed at the hearing to make the practice illegal.

 Hee said the version of the bill that moves through his committee Friday will remove sexual penetration from the police exemption from prostitution laws, leaving police with the ability to solicit sex in the course of an investigation.

 "I suppose that in retrospect the police probably feel somewhat embarrassed about this whole situation," Hee said. "But, thankfully, the issue has been brought to light and the behavior has been addressed.

 "The police support the idea that sexual penetration shall not be an exempt permitted behavior by the police in making arrests on prostitutes," Hee said. "They agree this tool is not an appropriate tool for their toolbox."

 Officers who have sex with prostitutes are subject to internal investigation and, on a case-by-case basis, the possibility of being fired or suspended, Bell said. But Bell said the department did not know of any cases in recent memory in which an officer was disciplined for having sexual contact with a prostitute.

 Bell said the department thought the clause they pushed to be removed from the bill was too vague.

 Hawaii's current anti-prostitution law includes the exemption: "This section shall not apply to any member of a police department, a sheriff, or a law enforcement officer acting in the course and scope of duties."

 The clause that was removed reads, "unless the action includes sexual penetration or sadomasochistic abuse."

 Bell said the department is dedicated to working with integrity, respect and fairness and didn't want the ability to have sex with prostitutes.

 "That's not something that we wanted anyway; that was just there," Bell said. "The only thing that we had a problem with was the verbal part."

 Kathryn Xian, director of the Pacific Alliance to Stop Slavery, said she was surprised police agreed to changing the law.

 "In all of the versions of the language, never did it exclude their ability to solicit verbally," said Xian, a candidate for Congress who drafted the language changing the exemption.

 ———

 Oskar Garcia can be reached at http://twitter.com/oskargarcia. Associated Press writer Sam Eifling also contributed to this report. ||||| HONOLULU (AP) — A key Hawaii lawmaker considering an anti-prostitution bill says he and Honolulu police have agreed to get rid of a longtime exemption that allowed officers to have sex with prostitutes.

 State Sen. Clayton Hee, head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he and police agreed at a meeting Tuesday that the exemption ran contrary to popular opinion.

 Honolulu police said during the meeting that they're OK with making it expressly illegal for officers to have sex with prostitutes, as long as undercover officers can still say they'll have sex so they can make arrests.

 Honolulu police spokeswoman Teresa Bell told The Associated Press that officers have never been allowed to have sex with prostitutes under departmental rules, so making it illegal won't change how officers operate.

 "That's exactly what we wanted and how we've been conducting our investigations — with the verbal offer," Bell said.

 Bell said Hee met with officers who submitted written and oral testimony to a House committee earlier in the legislative session.

 The bill passed the House without a clause that would have made sex with prostitutes illegal for officers after police lobbied to have the language removed, arguing it would inhibit undercover investigations by giving criminals knowledge of what police can and cannot do.

 At a Senate hearing last week, lawmakers and members of the public expressed outrage at the exemption after the AP reported on police officers' lobbying to keep it unchanged. Hee vowed at the hearing to make the practice illegal.

 Hee said the version of the bill that moves through his committee Friday will remove sexual penetration from the police exemption from prostitution laws, leaving police with the ability to solicit sex in the course of an investigation.

 "I suppose that in retrospect the police probably feel somewhat embarrassed about this whole situation," Hee said. "But, thankfully, the issue has been brought to light and the behavior has been addressed.

 "The police support the idea that sexual penetration shall not be an exempt permitted behavior by the police in making arrests on prostitutes," Hee said. "They agree this tool is not an appropriate tool for their toolbox."

 Officers who have sex with prostitutes are subject to internal investigation and, on a case-by-case basis, the possibility of being fired or suspended, Bell said. But Bell said the department did not know of any cases in recent memory in which an officer was disciplined for having sexual contact with a prostitute.

 Bell said the department thought the clause they pushed to be removed from the bill was too vague.

 Hawaii's current anti-prostitution law includes the exemption: "This section shall not apply to any member of a police department, a sheriff, or a law enforcement officer acting in the course and scope of duties."

 The clause that was removed reads, "unless the action includes sexual penetration or sadomasochistic abuse."

 Bell said the department is dedicated to working with integrity, respect and fairness and didn't want the ability to have sex with prostitutes.

 "That's not something that we wanted anyway; that was just there," Bell said. "The only thing that we had a problem with was the verbal part."

 Kathryn Xian, director of the Pacific Alliance to Stop Slavery, said she was surprised police agreed to changing the law.

 "In all of the versions of the language, never did it exclude their ability to solicit verbally," said Xian, a candidate for Congress who drafted the language changing the exemption.

 ___

 Oskar Garcia can be reached at http://twitter.com/oskargarcia. Associated Press writer Sam Eifling also contributed to this report. |||||
What is a shorter version of the above article?

– Honolulu police have apparently relented: They have agreed to give up the legal exemption that allows them to have sex with prostitutes. State Sen. Clayton Hee tells the AP that he and police came to a compromise in a meeting yesterday: "Sexual penetration" will be a no-no, but police working undercover will still be able to solicit sex with prostitutes, in order to make arrests. A Honolulu police rep says officers have never had their department's blessing to have sex with prostitutes, and that this whole to-do started because the department was just trying to remove a vague clause from an anti-prostitution bill. "I suppose that in retrospect the police probably feel somewhat embarrassed about this whole situation," Hee said. Hee tells KHON2 that "there are other parts of the exemption that will remain and that includes sexual contact," but that "HPD agrees that the sexual penetration language in the law that they are exempt from should no longer be an exemption for police officers." As to KHON2's assertion that "some people might think sexual contact might include touching some areas of the body that shouldn’t be touched. What would you say to that?” Hee apparently had no reply, with a police official just saying "we have strict policy" that he couldn't go into. And the woman who drafted the initial language change to the exemption expressed surprise: "In all of the versions of the language, never did it exclude their ability to solicit verbally," she notes.


News article:

As caterer Tyonne Johns cleared off party tables of plates and cups, making her way over to folding chairs, a dispute began at the park venue.

 Kempton A. Bonds, 19, said the chairs belonged to the Fairfax County Park Authority, where he worked, according to police. Johns said they were hers.

 Tensions had been simmering all Saturday night between Bonds and the guests at a wedding reception catered by Johns at hall in the park, and when bickering over the chairs started, as police described events Sunday, Bonds lashed out.

 In little time, a trivial matter escalated into the stabbing death of a woman who many who knew her say was an up-and-coming caterer and chef.

 Bonds, of Clifton, Md., has been charged with second-degree murder, accused of stabbing to death Johns, the 35-year-old owner of the Chef Tyonne catering company after their argument in Ellanor C. Lawrence Park in Chantilly, Fairfax County police said.

 Kempton A. Bonds, 19, of Clifton, Md., has been charged with second-degree murder for allegedly stabbing a caterer during what police said was an argument over folding chairs at a wedding Saturday. (Fairfax County Police)

 As Johns packed up folding chairs, witnesses say, Bonds said they were park property, police spokeswoman Monica Meeks said. Within minutes of that argument, police said, Bonds pulled out a pocketknife and stabbed Johns in the upper body.

 Police arrived at the park on Walney Road in Chantilly at approximately 10:50 p.m. and found Johns, of the District, stabbed. She died at a local hospital.

 Earlier Saturday evening, county officials said, Bonds had placed a call to police after becoming aggravated by the behavior of the wedding guests.

 Seymone Spence, a bartender working at the reception with the Chef Tyonne company and also Johns’s good friend, said Bonds cut off electrical power at the junction box during the reception, abruptly halting the music and festivities for a crowd of 80. The bride and groom had yet to share their first dance.

 “The young lady who was facilitating the cutting of the cake said ‘I don’t have a mic. The kid cut off the power, so if you all can hear me, we’re about to cut the cake,’ ” Spence said.

 Bonds called police at 9:24 p.m. to file a complaint of disorderly conduct and excessive noise, authorities said at a Sunday afternoon news conference.

 But when police arrived, they said the incident — logged as a domestic dispute — had been resolved. The park authority said that because the wedding had started late in the day, the guests were allowed to stay on the premises later than the usual closing.

 The argument over the chairs erupted later, police said.

 Calls to relatives of Bonds seeking an interview Sunday were not returned.

 He is being held without bond and has been fired by the park authority pending the outcome of the investigation. Bonds has worked there since 2015.

 As facilities attendant, he handled events such as weddings, birthday parties and baby showers. The park authority said it had never received a complaint about his conduct.

 “We are shocked,” said Judy Pedersen, spokeswoman for the park authority. “It’s a tragic event. We believe that our many employees . . . are law abiding, honest, hard-working people. This is just shocking, but we’re anxious to hear all of the facts.”

 Pedersen expressed condolences to Johns’s family.

 Throughout Saturday night, Spence said, Bonds’s bizarre conduct was noticeable to guests.

 “He was very, very pensive and tight,” she said. “He never once cracked a smile — not once. It was scary.”

 A friend, Nick Martin, 19, said Bonds attends Northern Virginia Community College. He planned to transfer to Virginia Commonwealth University this fall and major in communications, Martin said of Bonds.

 “It’s all so surreal,” he said. “He’s one of my good friends and it never seemed like he could even hurt a fly. I can’t imagine he’d do something like this.”

 Martin said Bonds called him Saturday while the wedding reception was taking place and said guests were getting upset about the regulations that Bonds said he had to enforce. Bonds mentioned a ban on not allowing decorations to be hung on the walls, Martin said.

 Mikaela Robinson, a sous chef for the catering company, was not at Saturday’s event but said Sunday she had fond memories of working alongside Johns.

 “She was full of life. Loving and caring,” she said. “I was her sous chef, so she was always hard on me because she wanted me to be better than her, but there was no way I would be and never will be.”

 Johns attended Empowerment Liberation Cathedral in Silver Spring. Bishop Allyson Abrams remembered her as a “kindhearted, very loving spirit.”

 “I just hope that justice will prevail,” she said.

 Johns’s cousin, Brandon Thompson, 30, of Richmond , said Johns was a rising chef who “took the road less traveled.” They often laughed, especially reflecting on shared childhood memories.

 Spence said she cherished Johns for her dominant personality and enterprising spirit.

 And, she said, she served a dazzling last meal: steaming-hot salmon and jerk chicken, complemented by macaroni and cheese and rice pilaf, well-plated and handed out to dozens.

 “She’s a professional,” Spence said. “It wasn’t haphazard. Nothing that she did was haphazard. It was all well thought of . . . everything was beautiful.”

 Julie Tate contributed to this report. ||||| Wedding Caterer Stabbed to Death After Reception in Fairfax Co.

 A wedding caterer was stabbed to death following a wedding reception in Chantilly, Va. on Saturday. The attack was over an argument involving who owned folding chairs, according to Fairfax County Park Authority. News4's Shomari Stone reports on the investigation and Derrick Ward talked to people who were at the wedding. (Published Sunday, Aug 7, 2016)

 A local caterer is dead after a 19-year-old man who worked for the Fairfax County Park Authority repeatedly stabbed her at the end of a wedding reception in Chantilly, Virginia, police say.

 Fairfax County police said 35-year-old Tyonne Johns was working the wedding at Ellanor C. Lawrence Park on Walney Road Saturday night.

 Kempton Bonds, a seasonal employee for the park authority, was also working at the wedding and was responsible for picking up trash and foldable chairs, police said.

 Johns was packing up foldable chairs from the celebration into her company’s truck, authorities said. Bonds insisted that the chairs belonged to the park authority and not the company for whom Johns was working.

 The two got into an altercation over the chairs, police said. Investigators believe the argument led to the stabbing.

 Police said investigators found the 3-inch pocket knife they believe Bonds used in the stabbing.

 Johns was taken to a hospital, where she was pronounced dead.

 Bonds stayed at the scene and was arrested and charged with second-degree murder. He is being held in the Fairfax County Adult Detention Center without bond.

 The park authority said it has fired Bonds, pending the outcome of the investigation. |||||
What is a shorter version of the above article?

– The wedding meal in a Virginia park Saturday went off without a hitch, but afterward it turned deadly: Police say 35-year-old caterer Tyonne Johns was loading folding chairs into a company vehicle when 19-year-old park employee Kempton Bonds began arguing that the chairs were the property of the Fairfax County Park Authority, reports the Washington Post. During the dispute, Bonds stabbed Johns in the upper body with a three-inch pocket knife, police tell NBC Washington. She was pronounced dead at a hospital, while Bonds, of Clifton, Md., was arrested and charged with second-degree murder. Earlier, around 9:20pm, Bonds had called police to report disorderly conduct and a noise violation, officers say. A friend of Johns says Bonds had cut power to the wedding reception before the bride and groom shared their first dance, possibly because the event extended beyond the park's usual operating hours. It isn't clear how Johns was involved in the dispute, but police say it was resolved when they arrived. Johns was stabbed around 10:50pm. She "was a dedicated friend with a genuine zest for life," a friend writes on a GoFundMe page. A friend of Bonds says the alleged crime is "extremely out of character for him." (In North Carolina, a woman was killed just weeks before her wedding day.)


Article:

Abolish the penny!

 According to Time magazine Dec 27, 2016

 The penny now costs more to make than it's worth. The penny might be more trouble than it's worth. The cost to produce the one-cent coin increased to 1.5 cents during 2016, the Wall Street Journal reported. In 2015, the penny cost 1.43 cents to make, while in 2014, its production value was 1.66 cents.

 The president and Congress is constantly cutting funds to important programs to save money. Here’s a easy way to cut the budget plus get rid of a coin no one really likes or needs. Our bases overseas do not use pennies. The lowest denomination is the nickel. The only pennies you see overseas are those brought over by new recruits. ||||| Pennies aren’t cheap.

 The one-cent US coin, mostly made of zinc with a little bit of copper, is the most abundant coin in the country. Last year, the US Mint produced more than 8.4 billion pennies for circulation. Between production costs and shipping, they cost $0.0182 each, which totaled to $69 million (pdf, p. 9) in losses compared to their total value—the biggest in nine years. This is likely due to the rising cost of zinc for use in heavy industry, construction, machine and ship building, and steel production.

 Nickels have cost more to make than their monetary value for over a decade. The five-cent coins—75% copper and 25% nickel—cost about seven cents each to produce last year. Prices for copper have surgedIt’s a key ingredient in any kind of circuit or wiring, and the rise of electric cars in particular has put stress on the market. Nickel has also gotten more expensive for its use in stainless steels.

 Fortunately, dimes and quarters are cheaper to make, costing less than their monetary value. So the Mint makes up the losses incurred on pennies and nickels with its 10- and 25-cent coins, and last year reported making $391.5 million in seigniorage. |||||
What is a summary?

– It costs more than a penny to make a penny. The US Mint produced more than 8.4 billion of the one-cent coins last year, at a cost of $0.0182 each with production costs and shipping taken into account. That means $69 million was lost when compared to the pennies' total value, Quartz reports, the biggest loss in nine years. That's probably because zinc (pennies are made mostly of zinc, with a small amount of copper) has been rising in price. Nickels, which are worth five cents, cost seven cents each to make, but dimes and quarters cost less than their value to produce, which ends up making up for the losses associated with pennies and nickels. Even so, petitions abound on the internet to abolish the penny and nickel.


Write a summary based on this article:

This Dec. 24, 2016 photo shows San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick talking during a news conference after an NFL football game against the Los Angeles Rams. Kaepernick filed a grievance against... (Associated Press)

 This Dec. 24, 2016 photo shows San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick talking during a news conference after an NFL football game against the Los Angeles Rams. Kaepernick filed a grievance against the NFL on Sunday, Oct. 15, 2017 alleging that he remains unsigned as a result of collusion by... (Associated Press)

 This Dec. 24, 2016 photo shows San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick talking during a news conference after an NFL football game against the Los Angeles Rams. Kaepernick filed a grievance against the NFL on Sunday, Oct. 15, 2017 alleging that he remains unsigned as a result of collusion by... (Associated Press) This Dec. 24, 2016 photo shows San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick talking during a news conference after an NFL football game against the Los Angeles Rams. Kaepernick filed a grievance against... (Associated Press)

 NEW YORK (AP) — Former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick filed a grievance against the NFL on Sunday, alleging that he remains unsigned as a result of collusion by owners following his protests during the national anthem.

 Kaepernick started a national conversation about political activism by athletes last season when he decided to sit, and then kneel, during the anthem to bring attention to mistreatment of African-Americans by police. Other players have continued the protests this season, prompting an angry response from President Donald Trump, who said players should be fired for not standing during the anthem.

 Kaepernick opted out of his contract with the 49ers at the end of last season and remains a free agent despite a rash of injuries and poor play at the quarterback position.

 Mark Geragos, one of Kaepernick's attorneys, said in a statement posted on Twitter on Sunday that he filed the grievance "only after pursuing every possible avenue with all NFL teams and their executives."

 "If the NFL (as well as all professional sports leagues) is to remain a meritocracy, then principled and peaceful political protest — which the owners themselves made great theater imitating weeks ago — should not be punished," Geragos said in the statement, "and athletes should not be denied employment based on partisan political provocation by the executive branch of our government. Such a precedent threatens all patriotic Americans and harkens back to our darkest days as a nation."

 San Francisco safety Eric Reid, Kaepernick's former teammate, has been kneeling during the anthem before games, including Sunday's 26-24 loss at the Washington Redskins.

 "I'll have to follow up with him," Reid said after the game. "It sure does seem like he's being blackballed. I think all the stats prove that he's an NFL-worthy quarterback. So that's his choice and I support his decision. We'll just have to see what comes of it."

 The NFL players' union said it would support the grievance, which was filed through the arbitration system that's part of the league's collective bargaining agreement.

 "Colin Kaepernick's goal has always been, and remains, to simply be treated fairly by the league he performed at the highest level for and to return to the football playing field," Geragos said.

 ___

 More AP NFL: http://pro32.ap.org and https://twitter.com/AP_NFL ||||| Free agent quarterback Colin Kaepernick is pursuing a collusion grievance against the NFL under the CBA, according to Jason La Canfora of CBS Sports and Mike Freeman of Bleacher Report.

 The NFL spokesman told La Canfora that he is checking on it.

 Kaepernick remains a free agent since opting out of his contract with the San Francisco 49ers in March. Kaepernick was one of the NFL's biggest stories in 2016 after he decided to kneel during the national anthem to protest and raise awareness against racial injustice in America. Players throughout the league have continued protesting during this NFL season.

 As explained by Sports Illustrated's Michael McCann in March, "Collusion occurs when two or more teams, or the league and at least one team, join to deprive a player of a contractually earned right. Such a right is normally found in the collective bargaining agreement signed by a league and its players’ association. For example, the right of a free-agent player to negotiate a contract with a team cannot be impaired by a conspiracy of teams to deny that a player a chance to sign."

 • Does Colin Kaepernick have a legit collusion case?

 Kaepernick has hired attorney Mark Geragos, who has represented high profile clients including Michael Jackson, Winona Ryder and NASCAR driver Jeremy Mayfield. Geragos issued the following statement:

 "We can confirm that this morning we filed a grievance under the CBA on behalf of Colin Kaepernick. This was done only after pursuing every possible avenue with all NFL teams and their executives.

 If the NFL (as well as all professional sports leagues) is to remain a meritocracy, then principled and peaceful political protest -- which the owners themselves made great theater imitating weeks ago -- should not be punished and athletes should not be denied employment based on partisan political provocation by the Executive Branch of our government. Such a precedent threatens all patriotic Americans and harkens back to our darkest days as a nation. Protecting all athletes from such collusive conduct is what compelled Mr. Kaepernick to file his grievance.

 Colin Kaepernick's goal has always been, and remains, to be simply be treated fairly by the league he performed at the highest level for and to return to the football playing field."

 According to Adam Schefter of ESPN, the NFLPA released a statement saying it would assist Kaepernick in this process and will talk with him soon.

 The statement reads:

 "Our union has a duty to assist Mr. Kaepernick as we do all players and we will support him.

 The NFLPA has been in regular contact with Mr. Kaepernick's representatives for the past year about his options and our union agreed to follow the direction of his advisors throughout that time.

 We first learned through media reports today that Mr. Kaepernick filed a grievance claiming collusion through our arbitration system and is represented by his own counsel. We learned that the NFL was informed of his intention to file a grievance before today.

 We are scheduling a call with his advisors for early this week." ||||| Thearon W. Henderson/Getty Images

 After remaining unsigned through six weeks of the 2017 NFL season, Colin Kaepernick claims the league is participating in collusion.

 As first reported by Bleacher Report's Mike Freeman, the former San Francisco 49ers quarterback has filed a grievance against the owners for collusion under the latest collective bargaining agreement.

 Mike Florio of Pro Football Talk reported on what Kaepernick is looking to accomplish with the grievance:

 "Per a source with knowledge of the situation, Kaepernick wants to trigger termination of the current Collective Bargaining Agreement.

 "Article 69, Section 2 of the CBA allows for the agreement to be terminated prematurely in the event of proof of collusion. Under Article 17, Section 16(c) of the CBA, termination can arise from only one incident of collusion involving only one player if there is clear and convincing evidence of a violation."

 Kaepernick's attorney, Mark Geragos, released a statement on why the grievance was filed, via Ian Rapoport of the NFL Network:

 Kaepernick opted out of his contract at the conclusion of last season with the expectation he would find a new landing spot but has not gotten a new deal and has received surprisingly little interest compared to how well he played last season. He finished the year with 16 touchdowns and only four interceptions in 12 games.

 The 29-year-old was notably the first NFL player to kneel during the national anthem at the start of last season as a protest against racial injustice. The media attention is a holdup for several organizations.

 As former Tennessee Titans general manager Floyd Reese recently explained to 102.5 The Game (via Jason Wolf of the Tennessean), "You don’t want this circus."

 However, Commissioner Roger Goodell has denied there has been any blackballing of the quarterback.

 "I believe that if a football team feels that Colin Kaepernick, or any other player, is going to improve that team, they're going to do it," he said in June, via Alden Gonzalez of ESPN.com.

 La Canfora reported last Sunday that Kaepernick is "not quitting" and is willing to prove himself as a quality option. |||||

– Colin Kaepernick, still unsigned six weeks into the NFL season, believes he is being blackballed for his role in protests during the national anthem and has filed a grievance against NFL owners. The former San Francisco 49ers quarterback became a free agent at the end of last season and has failed to land a contract despite impressive statistics and injuries to other quarterbacks. His complaint accuses team owners of collusion, which Sports Illustrated defines as what happens when "two or more teams, or the league and at least one team, join to deprive a player of a contractually earned right," including the right of a free-agent player to negotiate a contract. Last year, Kaepernick was the first player to protest racial injustice by refusing to stand for the anthem. If the NFL is to remain a meritocracy, "principled and peaceful political protest ... should not be punished," his attorney, Mark Geragos, said in a statement, per Bleacher Report. Kaepernick's grievance was filed under the latest collective bargaining agreement and the NFL player's union says it is supporting him. Former 49ers teammate Eric Reid, who started kneeling during the anthem soon after Kaepernick began his protest, tells the AP that it "sure seems like he is being blackballed." "I think all the stats prove that he's an NFL-worthy quarterback," he says. "So that's his choice and I support his decision."


Article:

FILE - In this July 24, 2013, file photo, former Democratic U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner leaves his apartment building in New York. Weiner will appear in federal court, Friday, May 19, 2017, to face criminal... (Associated Press)

 FILE - In this July 24, 2013, file photo, former Democratic U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner leaves his apartment building in New York. Weiner will appear in federal court, Friday, May 19, 2017, to face criminal... (Associated Press)

 Key events in the saga of Anthony Weiner, the former New York congressman who pleaded guilty Friday to transmitting sexual material to a minor:

 ___

 1998

 Nov. 3: Weiner, a Democrat, is elected to Congress.

 ___

 2005

 Sept 13: Weiner comes in second in a bid for the Democratic nomination for mayor of New York City.

 ___

 2010

 July 10: Weiner weds Huma Abedin, a close aide to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Former President Bill Clinton officiates.

 ___

 2011

 May 27: A lewd photograph of a man's underwear-clad crotch is sent from Weiner's Twitter account, and then is quickly taken down.

 May 29: A spokesman says Weiner's accounts were hacked and calls the burgeoning social media scandal "a distraction."

 June 6: Weiner tearfully admits to sending the lewd photo and then lying repeatedly to protect himself. He refuses to resign.

 June 11: Weiner seeks a temporary leave of absence from the House while he seeks professional treatment. A spokeswoman says he will focus on "becoming a better husband and healthier person."

 June 16: Weiner says he is resigning from Congress during a news conference in Brooklyn interrupted by hecklers. Weiner apologizes "for the personal mistakes I have made and the embarrassment I have caused."

 ___

 2013

 May 22: Weiner launches his re-entry into the world of politics with a run for New York City mayor, asking voters for a second chance.

 July 22: With Weiner leading in the polls, a gossip website posts sexually explicit messages it says were exchanged between Weiner and a woman later identified as Indiana native Sydney Leathers. The woman claims Weiner used the alias "Carlos Danger" for their exchanges.

 July 23: Weiner says he won't drop out of mayoral race, saying at a news conference: "This is entirely behind me."

 Sept. 10: Weiner finishes fifth in Democratic mayoral primary.

 ___

 2016

 Aug. 28: The New York Post publishes photos the newspaper says Weiner sent the previous year to a "40-something" divorced woman. One bulging-underwear shot shows his and Abedin's toddler son cuddling next to him.

 Aug. 29: Abedin says she is separating from Weiner.

 Sept. 21: The DailyMail.com publishes an interview with a 15-year-old girl who claims she had sexually explicit online text and video exchanges with Weiner. Weiner acknowledges communications but also claims he's been the subject of a hoax.

 Oct. 28: In a letter to Congress, then-FBI Director James Comey says his agency is investigating whether there is classified information in newly discovered emails of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, now the Democratic presidential nominee. A U.S. official with knowledge of the case tells The Associated Press the emails prompting the new FBI review came from a separate sexting probe of Weiner. Federal authorities in New York and North Carolina had been investigating online communications between Weiner and a 15-year-old girl.

 ___

 2017

 May 19: Weiner pleads guilty to criminal charges in connection with his online communications with the 15-year-old girl. ||||| Former U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner leaves Federal court, Friday, May 19, 2017, in New York. Weiner pleaded guilty to transmitting sexual material to a minor. (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer) (Associated Press)

 NEW YORK (AP) — Former U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner, whose penchant for sexting strangers ended his political career and sparked a probe that upended the presidential race, pleaded guilty Friday to a sex charge, tearfully apologizing for communications with a 15-year-old girl that he said destroyed his "life's dream in public service."

 Weiner, who could go to prison, pleaded guilty to a single count of transmitting obscene material to a minor. He admitted exchanging online messages with the girl beginning in January 2015 and "sharing explicit images and encouraging her to engage in sexually explicit conduct."

 "I have a sickness, but I do not have an excuse," he said.

 In court, the 52-year-old former Democratic congressman paused repeatedly as he fought back tears and tried to compose himself. He said he knew the texting was "as morally wrong as it was unlawful."

 Pleading to the charge, which requires him to register as a sex offender, could bring a sentence of up to 10 years. But Weiner is likely to serve a much shorter term if he is sentenced to prison. He signed a plea agreement with prosecutors in which he agreed not to appeal any sentence between 21 and 27 months in prison. His lawyer can request leniency at a sentencing scheduled for Sept. 8.

 Wearing his wedding ring and a dark blue suit with a maroon tie, Weiner read from a prepared statement after U.S. District Judge Loretta A. Preska addressed him: "Tell me what you did, sir."

 He said he "compulsively sought attention from women who contacted me on social media" beginning with his service in Congress and continuing through the first half of last year.

 "I engaged with many of them in both sexual and nonsexual conversation," he said. "These destructive impulses brought great devastation to my family and friends and destroyed my life's dream in public service. Yet I remained in denial even as the world around me fell apart."

 Weiner said he began getting mental health treatment in the fall, when he said he "came to grips for the first time with the depths of my sickness." He said he continues to follow the treatment daily.

 "I had hit bottom," he said. "Through treatment I found the courage to take a moral inventory of my defects."

 Weiner apologized to "everyone I have hurt," including the girl he "mistreated so badly."

 Finished speaking, he wiped his eyes with tissues.

 Weiner was already in federal custody ahead of the hearing, which lasted less than a half hour. Afterward, he shook hands with prosecutors, telling them: "Thanks, guys. I appreciate your service."

 He then went down the courthouse elevator surrounded by his lawyers and court officers and left the building. He said nothing to reporters. His wife, Huma Abedin, was not in court.

 Abedin, a top aide to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton last year, separated from Weiner in September after revelations he had sent more sexually charged messages online.

 That same month, the FBI began investigating Weiner after the North Carolina girl told the news website DailyMail.com that she and Weiner had exchanged lewd messages for several months.

 She also accused him of asking her to undress on camera. As part of his plea, Weiner agreed to forfeit his iPhone.

 The investigation led FBI agents to seize his laptop computer, which led to the discovery of a new cache of emails that Clinton had sent to Abedin.

 In late October, just days before the election, FBI Director James Comey stunned the country by announcing that his agency was reopening its closed investigation into Clinton's handling of State Department business on a private email server so it could analyze the newly discovered correspondence.

 That inquiry was brief. Comey announced shortly before the election that the new emails contained nothing to change his view that Clinton could not be charged with a crime. But Clinton partly blamed her loss to Republican Donald Trump on Comey's announcement.

 Weiner, who represented New York in Congress from 1999 to 2011, resigned after revelations that he was sending sexually explicit messages to multiple women.

 He ran for New York City mayor in 2013 and was leading several polls until it was revealed he had continued his questionable behavior. His failed mayoral bid was the subject of the documentary "Weiner." ||||| Former representative Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) was sentenced Sept. 25 to 21 months in jail for transferring obscene material to a minor. (Peter Stevenson/The Washington Post)

 This post, originally published in May, has been updated with news that Weiner has been sentenced to 21 months in jail for sexting with a minor.

 He was a congressman, he was a sexter.

 He was a mayoral candidate, he was a sexter.

 He was the subject of a cringing documentary, he was a sexter.

 He was ultimately the owner of a computer, seized by the FBI for sexting, that ended up playing a massive role in the 2016 presidential election. He was the husband of one of Hillary Clinton's trusted aides, and now he's about to be her ex-husband.

 And now, Anthony Weiner will go to jail. He was sentenced to 21 months in prison Monday after pleading guilty in May to a single charge of sending obscene material to a minor, related a 15-year-old girl he'd been talking to online.

 This is Weiner's story, and it's a sad one.

 Since the New York Democratic congressman resigned in 2011, Weiner popped back into the public sphere like the creatures from one of those whack-a-mole games at the arcade, often when we'd least expect him. And each time, the political world couldn't look away. And each time, we felt something different about this man and his phone and his self-described addiction.

 [Why do politicians cheat?]

 Weiner's story was first late-night-TV-worthy (a picture of his you-know-what out there on Twitter? And his last name is Weiner?!).

 It morphed into a classic politician sex scandal, his devoted and poised wife standing next to him: “I have said that other texts and photos were likely to come out, and today they have,” he said in a 2013 news conference as new sexts emerged in the middle of his failed run for mayor of New York City. "… There is no question that what I did was wrong. This behavior is behind me.”

 Then-New York mayoral candidate Anthony Weiner and his wife, Huma Abedin, at a 2013 news conference. (Eric Thayer/Reuters)

 Then Weiner's story became a bloody car crash unfolding on our TV screens as “Weiner,” a May 2016 documentary about that mayoral run that immolated his higher-profile wife. Huma Abedin was in the middle of trying to hold together a presidential campaign for her longtime boss and friend, Hillary Clinton, and the documentary probing the rifts in her marriage was just plain weird.

 “It was astonishing for Abedin to have allowed such a film as 'Weiner' to be made at all — much less to put a high-definition, close-up lens to the most humiliating chapter of her life,” wrote The Washington Post's Karen Tumulty.

 Also, what about Weiner? “Why would Weiner want such a film out there? Is it a blind addiction to the spotlight? Some kind of twisted PR ploy? An effort to humanize himself?” I asked at the time.

 Apparently Weiner got some kind of boost from it. He tried to bait Donald Trump Jr. into running against him for mayor of New York City.

 .@anthonyweiner on @DonaldJTrumpJr 4 Mayor of NYC: "I'd come out of retirement just to beat him like a rented mule" pic.twitter.com/C9YCDZ74A0 — Joe Toohey (@joetoohey) July 26, 2016

 Too soon Anthony!!! You probably shouldn't be talking about beating anything ever again. Go back to your cave. https://t.co/Mingecu6o9 — Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) July 26, 2016

 Then, Weiner's story took its final, dark turn. A few months after the documentary was released, Weiner sexted again. This time with his toddler son in the bed next to him. Allegedly with a 15-year-old, who released the photos to a British tabloid. Daily Mail reported that he'd been in a months-long online relationship with a 15-year-old girl.

 By the next morning, Weiner had deleted his Twitter account. By that afternoon, Abedin announced that the two were separating.

 Huma Abedin and Anthony Weiner are separating pic.twitter.com/4WVZxfTMmo — Bradd Jaffy (@BraddJaffy) August 29, 2016

 Flashback: Just two weeks ago, Weiner was asked if sexting had stopped. He deflected. https://t.co/eHXyf1R9hQ pic.twitter.com/M2iXPnnFIp — Aaron Blake (@AaronBlake) August 29, 2016

 This car crash wasn't satisfying to look at anymore. “Anthony Weiner is gross,” wrote Chris Cillizza at The Fix. “Let's stop paying attention to him.”

 Talk turned to whether Weiner's sex scandals were psychosomatic.

 “It's about people who use intense fantasy to escape,” Robert Weiss, a sex and tech addiction expert for Elements Behavioral Health addiction treatment centers, told The Fix, speaking about politicians who cheat in broad terms.

 We desperately wanted to be done with Weiner. But Weiner wasn't done with us.

 The FBI seized his computer to investigate whether he had sent inappropriate photos or videos to a minor. And on that computer, they found something else: emails Clinton sent and received using a private server while secretary of state.

 Eleven days before the presidential election, Weiner's sexting turned into a political bomb for Democrats. Then-FBI Director James B. Comey told Congress the FBI had found new Clinton emails in an unrelated investigation.

 “I can't consider for a second whose political fortunes will be affected in that way,” Comey would testify to Congress months later.

 Clinton lost the election. She'd later come to the conclusion that Anthony Weiner's sexual desires — and the FBI's decision to tell Congress the world about her previously undiscovered secretary of state emails sitting on a server with Weiner's sexts — were a big reason she lost.

 “When we heard this Huma looked stricken,” Clinton wrote in her new book “What Happened.” “Anthony had already caused so much heartache. And now this. ‘This man is going to be the death of me,’ [Huma] said, bursting into tears.”

 Of course it was Weiner. It was inevitable that this guy we wanted nothing more of would play a starring role in one of the biggest news stories of one of the biggest presidential elections in recent memory.

 Arguably, Weiner is STILL haunting us. Comey testified to Congress in May that Abedin had “forwarded hundreds and thousands” of Clinton emails to her husband, which is one reason the FBI director decided to alert Congress so close to the election. Turns out there were far fewer emails on Weiner's computer, the FBI announced several days later.

 That evening, Trump fired Comey (although he didn't originally say it was because of Comey's misstatements, it was a good excuse to pull the trigger). And now Trump is living with the consequences of that decision, an investigation into whether he obstructed justice. Trump's problems, in a weird way, has its roots in one of the weirdest political stories of the social media age.

 Weiner's modern political story is guffaw-worthy. Cynical. Just plain puzzling. Gross. Criminal. And somehow, influential. ||||| NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) — Disgraced former Congressman Anthony Weiner admitted exchanging sexually explicit text messages with a teenage girl and pleaded guilty to a charge of transferring obscene material to a minor.

 Here is the full prepared statement he read in court Friday:

 “Beginning with my service in Congress and continuing into the first half of last year, I have compulsively sought attention from women who contacted me on social media, and I engaged with many of them in both sexual and non-sexual conversation. These destructive impulses brought great devastation to family and friends, and destroyed my life’s dream of public service. And yet I remained in denial even as the world around me fell apart.

 In late January 2016, I was contacted by and began exchanging online messages with a stranger who said that she was a high school student and who I understood to be 15 years old. Through approximately March 2016, I engaged in obscene communications with this teenager, including sharing explicit images and encouraging her to engage in sexually explicit conduct, just as I had done and continued to do with adult women. I knew this was as morally wrong as it was unlawful.

 This fall, I came to grips for the first time with the depths of my sickness. I had hit bottom. I entered intensive treatment, found the courage to take a moral inventory of my defects, and began a program of recovery and mental health treatment that I continue to follow every day.

 I accept full responsibility for my conduct. I have a sickness, but I do not have an excuse. I apologize to everyone I have hurt. I apologize to the teenage girl, whom I mistreated so badly. I am committed to making amends to all those I have harmed. Thank you.” ||||| These crawls are part of an effort to archive pages as they are created and archive the pages that they refer to. That way, as the pages that are referenced are changed or taken from the web, a link to the version that was live when the page was written will be preserved.Then the Internet Archive hopes that references to these archived pages will be put in place of a link that would be otherwise be broken, or a companion link to allow people to see what was originally intended by a page's authors.The goal is to fix all broken links on the web . Crawls of supported "No More 404" sites. ||||| Anthony Weiner will finally be cut off.

 The pervy ex-pol whose years-long self-destructive sexting run sabotaged his own blossoming political career and marriage and helped torpedo Hillary Clinton’s shot at the White House will plead guilty Friday to a charge of transferring obscene material to a minor, possibly sending him to prison.

 Weiner was taken into FBI custody Friday morning, a source told the Daily News, and he will enter the plea in a federal courtroom in Manhattan at 11:00 a.m.

 The 52-year-old disgraced former congressman had been under federal investigation for having allegedly exchanged sexually explicit messages and images with a 15-year-old girl in North Carolina in 2016.

 Anthony Weiner has been under federal investigation for having allegedly exchanged sexuall explicit messages and images with a 15-year-old girl in North Carolina. (Richard Drew/AP)

 Weiner could now face up to 10 years in prison for the charge and will likely have to register as a sex offender, but he could also avoid prison altogether.

 A federal judge will determine his sentence at a later date.

 Earlier this year, Weiner’s lawyers had reportedly been in talks with federal prosecutors for weeks, angling for a plea deal to avoid the most serious possible charge, production of child pornography, which would have carried a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence.

 Weiner's estranged wife, Huma Abedin (l.), is a senior aide to Hillary Clinton. (Andrew Harnik/AP)

 The expected plea stems from Weiner’s most recent sexting scandal. Last year, a North Carolina teen came forward last year to say that he had been exchanging explicit messages with her.

 The girl said she decided to go public with their exchanges after seeing reports of Weiner sending pics to another woman with his toddler son in the background.

 The teen has claimed he encouraged her to role-play rape fantasies with him and to say his name while touching herself.

 Weiner's 2013 mayoral hopes were dashed in by the emergence of fresh scandal. (Andrew Savulich/New York Daily News)

 Weiner reportedly went by the name “T-Dog” while texting the teen and used an encryption app that erases messages and pictures as soon as they’re seen.

 In one shirtless photo sent to the girl, Weiner’s hand is gripping his genitals.

 The investigation follows a series of public embarrassments that cost Weiner his political career and his marriage — and may have helped damage Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

 Front page of the New York Daily News for September 22, 2016: Disgraced former Congressman Anthony Weiner, whose long-suffering wife Huma Abedin recently dumped him, is caught sexting once again, this time with a 15-year-old girl. This time, his transgressions could land him in jail. 15 COULD GET HIM 20 (New York Daily News) Front page of the New York Daily News for May 4, 2017: Hillary Clinton's top aide Huma Abedin is the person who helped torpedo her presidential campaign, FBI Director James Comey claimed Wednesday, because Abedin regularly forwarded classified government emails to her serial sexting spouse Anthony Weiner so the disgraced former pol could print them out for her. HUMA ERROR (New York Daily News) Daily News front pages for Sept. 22, 2016 and May 4, 2017.

 Weiner’s estranged wife Huma Abedin, a top aide to Clinton, had announced their separation last August after Weiner was caught sending a lewd selfie that showed his 4-year-old son lying next to him in bed.

 Investigators soon seized Weiner’s electronic devices, including a laptop and a cell phone, as part of the probe into that picture, leading to a series of events that many say contributed to Clinton losing the election.

 Federal investigators soon uncovered emails on his laptop that were sent by his estranged wife, prompting FBI Director James Comey to reopen an investigation into Clinton’s emails out of concern the shared computer might have had classified documents.

 Porn star Sydney Leathers had a hand in Weiner's undoing. (Bryan Smith)

 Comey quickly closed the case without any charges, but his announcement, just days before the election, that he’d reopened it at all created negative publicity during a critical moment of the presidential campaign.

 Democrats said the attention might have contributed to President Trump’s win.

 A Clinton presidency isn’t the only thing Weiner lost due to his pervy online personas.

 The Queens Democrat resigned from Congress in 2011 after a lurid sexting scandal involving a crotch shot that he posted on Twitter.

 A testy Weiner insisted to reporters at the time that his account had been hacked. But days later, he came clean and resigned.

 He later admitted during a press conference to having carried on inappropriate online relationships with at least a half dozen women.

 Two years later, he attempted a political comeback and ran for New York City mayor, but his bid imploded when more online exchanges with women surfaced, including messages he traded with a woman named Sydney Leathers under the pseudonym “Carlos Danger.” |||||
What is a summary?

– Anthony Weiner has an unfortunate new title to go with "disgraced congressman." From now on, he'll also be a registered sex offender. Weiner appeared in federal court on Friday and pleaded guilty to a charge of transmitting sexual material to a minor, reports the New York Daily News. "I have a sickness, but I do not have an excuse," Weiner said in confessing to sending sexual images to a 15-year-old girl in North Carolina. While reading his statement, he "quickly dissolved into tears," reports the New York Times. And he might yet end up in jail. Related coverage: Divorce: The New York Post reports that Huma Abedin also filed for divorce from Weiner on Friday. It's uncontested, suggesting no fight is expected over assets or custody of their son. What he said: CBS News has the full text of his court statement here. Prison: Weiner faces up to 10 years when he is sentenced in September, but don't bet on it. Prosecutors said 21 to 27 months would be "fair and appropriate," and the AP notes that Weiner agreed not to appeal any sentence of that length. He also could be spared jail altogether. Keeping track: Having trouble remembering all the Weiner scandals? This timeline of his career from the AP might help. Affecting an election: If Hillary Clinton blames James Comey for her loss, then she should be blaming Weiner, too. CNN lays out how his sexting got tangled up in her email trouble. How sad: Amber Phillips assesses it all at the Washington Post, including the question of why on earth Weiner and Abedin allowed a documentary to be made about them. The "sad" Weiner story is not just "one of the weirdest political stories of the social media age," she writes. It's "guffaw-worthy. Cynical. Just plain puzzling. Gross. Criminal. And somehow totally impactful." Moving on: At CNN, Chris Cillizza makes a plea likely to have plenty of support: "Now, can we please agree to just stop talking about Weiner?"


Write an article based on this summary:

– Jane Austen wrote, "To be sure, you knew no actual good of me—but nobody thinks of that when they fall in love." But had she submitted that line to a modern English teacher, she would have gotten docked for grammar. Instead of "when they fall in love," it should be "when he falls in love," or perhaps the clunkier "when he or she falls in love," right? That has long been the prevailing view, but after a slow and steady creep, that view seems to be disappearing. In fact, this year might be the tipping point for acceptance of the "singular they." Quartz, for example, has dubbed singular they its Word of the Year. And earlier this month, the Washington Post changed its style guide to accept it, though the guide still encourages reporters to first try to write around it by recasting the sentence as plural, notes Poynter. So, "All students must complete their homework, not Each student must complete his or her homework," per the guide. But when that kind of rewrite is "impossible or hopelessly awkward," writers should employ the singular they. One big factor behind the shift—not just at the Post but in newspapers, online posts, and English classrooms across the country—is the increasing acceptance in society of those who identify as neither male nor female. The singular they solves the problem. (On a related note, the New York Times now permits "Mx." as a gender-neutral honorific in place of Mr. or Ms., notes Quartz.) Grammatical purists may protest, but they are simply wrong, writes English teacher Anne Curzan at the Chronicle for Higher Education. "There is nothing grammatically wrong with singular they other than the fact that people say there is something wrong with it," she writes, noting the similarity to the outdated rule, still enforced in places, about not splitting infinitives. Adds Anna Walsh at Baltimore's City Paper, "Using language that's more accurately inclusive is something that every grammarian should be able to get behind, regardless of what pronouns they personally use." (The Internet seems to have invented a preposition.)

Starting today, you will no longer read about e-mail or Web sites in The Washington Post. Or open-mike nights or Wal-Mart. Here, as in much of the written-word world, you will see email and website and Walmart. Microphones will be mics.

 Why did we wait so long to make the changes? As the keeper, more or less, of The Post’s style manual, I’ll tell you why: because the new spellings were wrong.

 Mic arose from confusion over the difference between an abbreviation and a short form. Walmart arose from confusion over the difference between a name and a logo. The hyphenless email arose in a process seemingly familiar but actually unprecedented. (But website is fine. I don’t know why I made such a big deal about it all these years.)

 Funny thing about language: Wrong doesn’t necessarily stay wrong. “Error is the engine of language change,” as David Shariatmadari wrote in the Guardian, “and today’s mistake could be tomorrow’s vigorously defended norm.” What’s more, yesterday’s vigorously defended norm can be today’s laughingstock. “WaPo’s shortened version of ‘microphone’ is ‘mike’ not ‘mic’. Has everyone gone crazy here?” our own Chris Cillizza tweeted in 2013. When I announced these style changes, another Twitter user wrote, “wait, it’s 2015 and there are still people who write e-mail?”

 Not everyone is on Twitter, of course. For every online Post reader snickering at mike, there might be a longtime print subscriber baffled by mic. Because it would be impractical to edit each article separately for online and print audiences, we err on the conservative side. And, at the risk of inviting vigorous internal debate, I think The Washington Post, at least in hard-news stories, should read like the “publication of record” that it is. If I see a lead paragraph that would sound ridiculous in Walter Cronkite’s voice, that gives me pause. “POTUS got called out for walking back his pivot on the Grexit”? No.

 But there comes a point when atoms of language change start to form molecules. Mic doesn’t exist in isolation. Some now-common phrases — mic drop, hot mic — would look downright anachronistic with the old spelling. That reality was what finally persuaded me to drop the mike from the Post stylebook.

 Still, mic is an aberration. Words like that aren’t pronounced like that. A bicycle is a bike, not a bic. Bic, as in the pens, rhymes with Mick. So do hic and Nic and pic and Ric and sic and tic and Vic. That’s how short forms work: They’re intended to be pronounced, and so they’re spelled phonetically. You don’t just start subtracting letters until you’re left with something approximate. A refrigerator is a fridge; frig is a mild curse word that rhymes with pig.

 Electronic recording devices, from the cassette recorders on which my brothers and I imitated Johnny Carson to more modern contraptions, have microphone jacks labeled MIC. It’s an abbreviation, never intended to be pronounced as a word, like Chas and Robt and Wm in a phone book.

 Nevertheless, enough people made the error that mic gradually crept into the language. If you search the Nexis database for “open mike night” and “open mic night,” you’ll find three mics alongside 343 mikes in all recorded English-language news before 1993. The numbers stay lopsided in favor of mike into the early years of the 21st century, until mic finally overtakes it in 2005. Was it really that crazy for a newspaper to reject the mistaken spelling?

 As a purist, I’m still not happy about mic. As a pragmatist, I feel I have to accept it. At least at work, that is. On my own time, you could say I’ve built a second career on ranting against language developments I consider unfortunate. In my first book, “Lapsing Into a Comma,” I called email “an abomination.” That was 15 years ago, but I’m still surprised anyone ever thought to write the word that way.

 While it’s true that commonly used two-word or hyphenated compounds often solidify into single words over time, that had never before happened with a compound based on a single letter. We had T-shirts and X-rays for a long time before electronic mail showed up, but we still aren’t writing about tshirts and xrays.

 For whatever reason, though, e-mail quickly became email as America went online. For years I braced for the day when a higher-up at The Post would banish the hyphen, especially after the Associated Press, the arbiter of style for most other U.S. publications, followed its 2010 website change with a 2011 move to email. But the order never came. A reporter would make the suggestion every once in a while, and the Twitterverse occasionally weighed in, but my bosses and their bosses seemed content with the status quo. I resolved to resist at least until the New York Times followed the AP’s lead. When that happened — on both terms, two years ago — I knew the change was inevitable.

 As The Post has prepared for its move to a new building this month, I decided it was a good time to propose this batch of changes. Publication style is largely about consistency and polish, which in turn can represent credibility — if we can’t decide whether we use gray or grey, can you trust our attention to detail in stories about campaign finance or nuclear weapons? But it’s also about not looking weird, not distracting readers. E-mail, Web site, mike and Wal-Mart had begun to do so.

 In 2008, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. changed its logo. Instead of WAL-MART in all caps with a star in place of the hyphen, it went with Walmart, conventionally capitalized, followed by an asterisk-like star. But the company remained Wal-Mart Stores Inc.

 Rather than start writing about Wal-Mart and its Walmart stores, The Post chose to stick with the corporate name for both the company and the outlets. That new logo must have made an impression, because readers sure did notice the disconnect between the bright-blue signage and the intrusively hyphenated black-on-white Post rendition. They complained to reporters, and reporters complained to me. I told the reporters to tell Wal-Mart to change its name already.

 It didn’t, but I found a loophole that allowed me to go with Walmart, now the predominant usage, in good conscience. The Post no longer routinely uses Inc., Corp., Co. and the like in company names. So we could keep Wal-Mart Stores Inc. on the rare occasion when we’d spell out the name, while otherwise referring to the company and its stores by the name everyone knows.

 There was one change, though, that I knew would cause controversy. For many years, I’ve been rooting for — but stopping short of employing — what is known as the singular they as the only sensible solution to English’s lack of a gender-neutral third-person singular personal pronoun. (Everyone has their own opinion about this.) He once filled that role, but a male default hasn’t been palatable for decades. Using she in a sort of linguistic affirmative action strikes me as patronizing. Alternating he and she is silly, as are he/she, (s)he and attempts at made-up pronouns. The only thing standing in the way of they has been the appearance of incorrectness — the lack of acceptance among educated readers.

 What finally pushed me from acceptance to action on gender-neutral pronouns was the increasing visibility of gender-neutral people. The Post has run at least one profile of a person who identifies as neither male nor female and specifically requests they and the like instead of he or she. Trans and genderqueer awareness will raise difficult questions down the road, with some people requesting newly invented or even individually made-up pronouns. The New York Times, which unlike The Post routinely uses the honorifics Mr., Mrs., Miss and Ms., recently used the gender-neutral Mx. at one subject’s request. But simply allowing they for a gender-nonconforming person is a no-brainer. And once we’ve done that, why not allow it for the most awkward of those he or she situations that have troubled us for so many years?

 I was a little surprised that the singular they has drawn stronger online reaction, both positive and negative, than the other style changes, especially because we are approaching it pretty cautiously. The stylebook entry retains the old advice to try to write around the problem, perhaps by changing singulars to plurals, before using the singular they as a last resort.

 Even as we switch from distracting “normal people” (as Washingtonian magazine put it) with e-mail to distracting freaks like me with email, I suspect that the singular they will go largely unnoticed even by those who oppose it on principle. We’ve used it before, if inadvertently, and I’ve never heard a complaint.

 Twitter: @TheSlot

 Read more from Outlook and follow our updates on Facebook and Twitter. ||||| In 'The His'er Problem,' from her 1998 essay collection "Ex Libris," Anne Fadiman talks about using gender-neutral language in writing, and describes reading a sentence "by my beloved role model, E. B. White: 'There is one thing the essayist cannot do—he cannot indulge himself in deceit or concealment, for he will be found out in no time.' I felt the door slamming in my face so fast I could feel the wind against my cheek." Using "he" as the supposedly neutral pronoun is exclusionary, but what do you do about a phrase like "to each his own"? Using "his or her" feels unnecessarily clunky, but in her essay, Fadiman objects to using "their" as a singular neutral pronoun—"The disagreement between pronoun and antecedent is more than I can bear," she writes.

 While grammar sticklers might argue that it's totally incorrect to use "they" or "their" as a singular pronoun, Ben Zimmer, the executive editor of Vocabulary.com and a columnist for The Wall Street Journal, points out that singular they has been in usage for more than seven centuries, "appearing in the work of writers from Chaucer to Shakespeare to Jane Austen."

 Singular they was a major topic at the American Copy Editors Society's national conference in March, which I attended. (Yes, it was just as gloriously geeky as you might imagine.) Especially given the rising visibility of transgender and genderqueer individuals who might not use "he" or "she" as their pronouns, it feels less inclusive and accurate to use a "his or her" construction than "their." After that conference, City Paper changed its style guide to include "they" as an acceptable singular pronoun, when it can't be written around—"if readers are upset about the change, they can complain to the copy editor," for instance, instead of "if a reader is upset about the change, they can complain to the copy editor."

 The conversation about singular they has continued (at least in copy-editing circles) throughout the year. John McIntyre from The Baltimore Sun has long been OK with singular they, and, as he pointed out in April, has for years allowed it in copy "without a peep of protest from readers." The Pittsburgh City Paper started using it in August after covering a gender-fluid musician who used "they" as their pronoun. "When this has come up before, our solution had always been to write around it when possible, often by eliminating any pronoun use," Editor Charlie Deitch wrote in a post announcing the change. "But that is difficult to do and ignores the greater issue at hand: Who am I to write around someone's identity just because it's tough to write in a news story?"

 Singular they made news again recently, when Bill Walsh, who has been a copy editor at The Washington Post since 1997, wrote about the style changes he's implemented recently at the Post. "For many years, I've been rooting for — but stopping short of employing — what is known as the singular they as the only sensible solution to English's lack of a gender-neutral third-person singular personal pronoun," he writes. "What finally pushed me from acceptance to action on gender-neutral pronouns was the increasing visibility of gender-neutral people." Using language that's more accurately inclusive is something that every grammarian should be able to get behind, regardless of what pronouns they personally use. ||||| It has been a big week for proponents of non-binary gender identifiers. On Wednesday, The New York Times included a new honorific — Mx. — in a story that quoted Senia Hardwick, a bookshop employee who didn’t want to be assigned a gender by the newspaper.

 It was a big step for the Times, which still hasn’t settled on a definitive style for the word, Kara Bloomgarden-Smoke wrote in the New York Observer:

 Asked about the use of Mx. (pronounced “mix”) in the Times back in June, standards editor Philip B. Corbett seemed to be taking a wait and see approach to the word. “I don’t think we’re likely to adopt Mx. in the near future,” Mr. Corbett told the Times. “It remains too unfamiliar to most people, and it’s not clear when or if it will emerge as a widely adopted term.”

 Now comes word via Washington Post style sage Bill Walsh that Washington’s paper of record will allow employees to use “they” to refer to “people who identify as neither male nor female.” Here’s an excerpt from his memo to the newsroom:

 It is usually possible, and preferable, to recast sentences as plural to avoid both the sexist and antiquated universal default to male pronouns and the awkward use of he or she, him or her and the like: All students must complete their homework, not Each student must complete his or her homework. When such a rewrite is impossible or hopelessly awkward, however, what is known as “the singular they” is permissible: Everyone has their own opinion about the traditional grammar rule. The singular they is also useful in references to people who identify as neither male nor female.

 The Washington Post’s ruling is the latest salvo in a style dispute that has seen skirmishes between journalism greybeards on both sides. Earlier this year, the adoption of “they” as an acceptable pronoun surfaced several times during the annual American Copy Editors Society conference. My colleagues Kristen Hare and Lauren Klinger wrote about its potential for inclusion in The Associated Press stylebook, as well as its evolving usage in newsrooms across America.

 Follow @BenMullin

  ||||| You’ve probably come across the singular pronoun “they” recently. Perhaps it was in the Washington Post’s recent addition of it to the paper’s style guide. Perhaps it was in this BBC article about gender-neutral pronouns. Perhaps it was in this viral Tumblr post comparing singular “they” to singular “you.” Wherever the source, singular “they” has become more popular in 2015 than ever before–so popular, in fact, that it’s Quartz’s (unofficial) nomination for Word of the Year.

 Let’s clear something up right away. Using “they” to refer to a single person isn’t new, but words of the year rarely are. Rather, this usage has been simmering for many years, finally bursting onto the scene this year with a newfound prominence. And just in time, too. Language can and should keep up with cultural shifts, including developments in society’s understanding of gender. While some holdout grammarians and copy editors might squirm, it’s become increasingly clear that our current pronoun palette simply isn’t sufficient. Luckily, we already have a perfectly good word at the ready.

 We must remember that language is not meant to be static—and never has been. In fact, the first written citation of singular “they” dates all the way back to the 1300s. Here’s a selection from Chaucer’s Pardoner’s Prologue (c. 1395):

 And whoso fyndeth hym out of swich blame,

 They wol come up…

 It’s not just Chaucer, though: the use of singular “they” continues throughout the centuries. Here it is again in Shakespeare’s Comedy of Errors, from 1594:

 There’s not a man I meet but doth salute me

 As if I were their well-acquainted friend

 There are 75 examples of singular “they” in Jane Austen, so I’ll leave most of them to the link, but here are a few from Pride & Prejudice (1813):

 “I cannot pretend to be sorry… that he [Darcy] or that any man should not be estimated beyond their deserts; but with him I believe it does not often happen.” “To be sure, you knew no actual good of me—but nobody thinks of that when they fall in love.”

 In fact, singular “they” turns up so often in the history of English literature that it seems a bit absurd there’s any controversy about it at all. How did we get the idea that there was something wrong with singular “they”?

 In the late 18th century, grammarians with a serious case of Latin-envy decided that when you didn’t know the gender of someone you were referring to, the best option was to use “he.” The idea was that since Latin didn’t have a singular “they,” English shouldn’t either. The proposal for “he” as a substitute arises from a similar (sexist) logic as that which led to the use of “mankind” to refer to all of humanity. (Latin also didn’t have a lot of other perfectly fine English things, such as split infinitives or sentence-ending prepositions: you can blame these folks for most of your grammar angst).

 “He” has never been a perfect solution: As soon as it took the place of singular “they,” people wished for a gender-neutral alternative.

 Although lots of well-regarded writers (Dickens, Eliot, Wilde, and many others) kept using singular “they,” the proposed alternative—ostensibly the ungendered “he”—did become relatively common. And importantly, the generic “he” started being recommended by people with the power to influence others’ language, such as copy editors, English teachers, and writers of popular style guides like Strunk & White.

 But “he” has never been a perfect solution: pretty much as soon as it started taking the place of singular “they,” people began to wish for a truly gender-neutral alternative, as early as Samuel Taylor Coleridge in 1808 and Otto Jespersen in 1894. But the big backlash started in earnest the 1970s, when Kate Swift and Casey Miller published first essays and then books linking words like generic “he” and “mankind” to sexism.

 But what to use instead? Language reformers and non-binary linguistic activists alike have invented a plethora of new words like ey, eir, em (the Spivak pronouns) and xe, xir, xem, both with a variety of spellings. But novel pronouns have had a hard time catching on. Other people use “he and she” or “s/he,” but these options get clunky fast, especially when you need to repeat them, and they overlook people who don’t identify with “he” or “she,” a group that’s also become more visible in 2015. (The New York Times, for example, quietly decided to allow “Mx” as a gender-neutral title in pieces this year—as did Oxford Dictionaries and the British Government.)

 The increasing visibility of genderqueer and non-binary folks who prefer to be referred to as “they” has pushed this acceptance along even faster—if you’re writing a news article about a they-user, either you use complicated syntactic tricks to avoid writing pronouns at all, or you simply follow their preferences. And then once you’ve accepted singular “they” in such cases, why not also let it rescue you from clunky phrasing when gender is unknown, nonspecific, or irrelevant?

 The good news is the mainstream seems to finally be catching up to what sensible grammarians and excellent writers have been saying for ages: there’s just no good reason to condemn singular “they.” And more importantly, there are plenty of reasons to embrace it.

 Once you’ve accepted singular “they,” why not also let it rescue you from other clunky phrasing?

 Google Trends shows us that searches for “singular they” were up all through 2015, with the highest spike yet occurring in April 2015, probably owing to Ben Zimmer’s column in the Wall Street Journal. Zimmer was reporting on the annual meeting of the American Copy Editors Society: “Now, it seems, those who have held the line against singular ‘they’ may be easing their stance.” Searches for “singular they” spiked again in September 2015, this time probably caused by several colleges adding support for gender-neutral pronouns.

 Ultimately, it’s popular support that really matters. Language is changing constantly: the English of Shakespeare’s day doesn’t sound like our English today, and the English of 500 years from now will have changed even further. It’s a grassroots, open source, democratic process—and in this case, it’s clear that people are voting for singular “they.” For example, over 100,000 people have interacted with this Tumblr post pointing out that plenty of pronouns and other words have changed during the history of English. Singular “you,” once a radical innovation, gradually displaced “thou/thee” (for that matter, if you’re the Queen or Helen Mirren, you can even get away with singular “we”).

 Going further back, “they” itself is a relative newcomer to English, arriving in Middle English from an Old Norse word meaning “those.” (A relic of the Old English third plural pronoun is found in ‘em, as in “go get ’em.” It seems like the apostrophe stands for a dropped “th” in “them,” but it’s actually from a dropped “h” in “hem,” just like we sometimes drop the h’s in “his” and “her.” But “hem” sounded too close to “him,” so people gradually started using the Norse word instead.)

 Language is changing constantly: the English of Shakespeare’s day doesn’t sound like our English today.

 Historical references aside, perhaps the best way to push singular “they” into large-scale circulation is just to keep using it. The internet is way ahead of the game here: Facebook has been using singular “they” for almost a decade now when users decline to state a gender or, more recently, indicate that they actively prefer being referred to as “they.” And it’s become generally common online to refer to other users as “they” (such as when replying in a comment thread) when you don’t have any cues about their gender.

 More official sources have also approved of singular “they.” The Canadian Government, for example, specifically endorses it. And John McIntyre, copy editor at the Baltimore Sun, has been letting in singular “they” for several years now, and he says that no one’s ever complained. It’s not approved by The Economist’s style guide, but the language columnist there endorsed it in 2014.

 In fact, even that most conservative of sources, edited books, have seen increases in singular “they.” Using Google Ngrams, a corpus of published books, we can see increases in the past few decades from both a search for “themself” and a comparison of “everyone has their own” versus “everyone has his own.” While many of these uses are probably subconscious (even authors that officially condemn singular “they” often use it elsewhere), there’s at least one book with a mainstream publisher that uses singular “they” as a conscious style choice. Its author blogged: “There was no back-and-forth: They said this was a point of view they hadn’t considered before, and they accepted it entirely, and agreed to re-insert all of my singular ‘they’s.”

 Liberal Tumblr and conservative copy editors may not agree on a lot of things, linguistically speaking. But in 2015, they may finally have found some common ground.

 This article is part of Quartz Ideas, our home for bold arguments and big thinkers. ||||| I have a new favorite mug. It was given to me by the graduate students in the Joint Program in English and Education (JPEE) and celebrates my advocacy of singular they—with the explanatory footnote.

 But when can we stop including the footnote?

 We got one step closer two weeks ago, when Bill Walsh, chief of the night copy desk at The Washington Post, sent an email to the newsroom announcing some changes in the style guidelines. In addition to eliminating the hyphen in email and endorsing the spelling mic over mike, his email gave in to singular they as “permissible” when rewriting the sentence to make it plural is “impossible or hopelessly awkward.” Walsh also noted the usefulness of they when referring to people who identify outside the male-female binary.

 Walsh’s email — and more specifically the part of his email about singular they — made headlines, including an article by Bill Walsh himself. John E. McIntyre, night content production editor at The Baltimore Sun and a long-time advocate of singular they, published a nice piece addressing some of the common objections to singular they. And Arika Okrent, blogging at Mental Floss, predicted that other news organizations will follow the Post’s lead. I would guess she is right.

 This is how rules change: one style guide at a time. And often cautiously. Walsh does not wholeheartedly embrace singular they. He frames it as a permissible last resort when there is no way to get around the need for a generic singular pronoun. When nothing terrible happens — readers are not confused by singular they, if they even notice it, and no one cancels their subscription to the newspaper over it — singular they will become an ever more standard option.

 It will take a while for widespread acceptance of singular they among English teachers and copy editors. After all, some of them are still strictly enforcing the rule about not splitting infinitives, and that was cautiously accepted by Oxford and others some 20 years ago. But I think it is fair to say that singular they now has its foot solidly in the door of acceptable English usage. Or, to change the metaphor, the gatekeepers of formal English usage have cracked open the gate.

 As a historian of the English language, I have accepted this cautious creep toward acceptability, even though there is nothing grammatically wrong with singular they other than the fact that people say there is something wrong with it. It makes sense that the dissipation of long-established grammar and style rules takes time.

 As a professor of English and a copy editor, I am one of the gatekeepers when it comes to what counts as “acceptable” in formal, edited prose. I am doing and will continue to do what I can to speed things along: I voted “completely acceptable” for all the sentences with singular they on the 2015 usage survey for The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language; I will continue to use singular they in my own academic writing; I talk with students about the debate in class; and obviously I can’t seem to help but blog about singular they here. The next step is to assume that my readers will see singular they as standard enough (e.g., in the line above about no one canceling their subscription) that it merits no special comment.

 I have decided to keep the mug and drop the footnote. |||||


(CNN) -- Two-time Oscar winner Tom Hanks played a role in the surprise ending of a domestic assault case in Los Angeles, according to defense attorney Andrew Flier.

 Hanks had been serving as a juror in the trial since it started last week. Flier's client was facing up to a year in jail and the attorney was prepared to offer closing arguments in the case on Wednesday.

 Instead, as proceedings wrapped Tuesday, the prosecuting attorney revealed that another lawyer in the Los Angeles City Attorney's Office had interacted with Hanks outside the courtroom, thanking him for his service.

 As a result, Flier asked the court for a mistrial, citing prosecutorial misconduct. In a hearing on Wednesday morning, lawyers on both sides of the case convened and settled on a reduced charge for the defendant: disturbing the peace and a $150 fine.

 City Attorney's Office spokesperson Frank Mateljan confirmed the interaction with Hanks, saying, "The city attorney has been appraised of the situation and will be reviewing it."

 CNN reached out to representatives for Hanks for comment, but has not heard back.

 The alleged victim's reaction to the resolution was unavailable. Prosecutors do not identify those who makes claims of domestic violence, and the parties involved have made no public statement, Mateljan said.

 Flier said he was initially concerned that having a Hollywood star on the jury would unfairly influence the case's outcome.

 "I think because of his celebrity status and because of his personality, I think (the jury) would have followed him."

 But after interviewing Hanks in jury selection, Flier decided he was a good fit for the final slot on the jury.

 "He never looked or made any statements like he wanted to get off jury duty. So based on everything, he seemed like a very fair juror," Flier said.

 Hanks' appearance didn't only affect proceedings inside the courtroom. Flier said the star also drew quite a crowd of photographers and fans outside the courthouse afterward.

 "Everyone was taking photographs. He was smiling. He welcomed anybody," Flier said.

 If the case hadn't ended in a plea, Flier said he doesn't know how Hanks would have voted.

 "He looked at me like he always had, smiled and said, 'I was going to vote the way of justice.' So he never disclosed what that justice was headed for, the defense or the prosecution."

 CNN's JD Cargill contributed to this report. ||||| Tom Hanks Just a Normal Juror

 Tom Hanks -- Just A Normal Juror

 EXCLUSIVE

 just left an L.A. courthouse after spending a day in the jury box ... deciding the fate of a man accused of domestic violence.TMZ broke the story ... Hanks was picked to hear the case of a guy who allegedly struck his girlfriend and faces a maximum of 1 year in jail if convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence.Hanks took copious notes as lawyers took the arresting detective through her paces. He listened as the defendant's lawyer suggested the alleged victim may have been jealous because his client was leaving her for a younger woman.Hanks was friendly with the jurors, interacting with them during the breaks. In court, he even laughed at one of the lawyer's jokes -- which probably wasn't even that funny.Hanks is back in court tomorrow. ||||| Tom Hanks Jury Duty Domestic Violence Case

 EXCLUSIVE

 is deciding the fate of a man accused of battering a woman -- TMZ has learned, the Academy Award winning actor is serving as a juror in an intense domestic violence case ... and he's doing a bang-up job.We're told Hanks is in the zone right now in the jury box, assiduously taking notes about the case.He's keeping things casual though, wearing a black long-sleeve shirt, dark blue jeans, and black-rimmed glasses.We're told he's being VERY attentive, hanging on every word of witness testimony.Or maybe he's just acting. He's good at that. |||||

Write a summary.

– Tom Hanks was just trying to do his civic duty, and he ended up inadvertently messing up a trial. Hanks was serving on a jury in LA this week, but when a lawyer in the City Attorney's Office made the mistake of talking to the actor, the case had to be settled with a plea deal. The prosecuting attorney revealed the interaction Tuesday and asked for a mistrial based on prosecutorial misconduct, CNN reports. Instead, yesterday, both sides agreed to a reduced charge. The defendant initially faced up to a year in jail on domestic assault charges; the reduced disturbing the peace charge carries with it just a $150 fine. So what did the lawyer approach Hanks about? He reportedly thanked the actor for his service. TMZ earlier reported that Hanks was either an awesome juror or just acting like one: taking lots of notes, listening closely, talking to the other jurors during the breaks, and laughing at one of the lawyer's jokes. The defense attorney confirms to CNN that, though he was initially skeptical of putting Hanks on the jury, "He never looked or made any statements like he wanted to get off jury duty. So based on everything, he seemed like a very fair juror." How would he have voted? The defense attorney says Hanks simply "looked at me like he always had, smiled and said, 'I was going to vote the way of justice.'"


News article:

A group of 3,000 Swedish file sharers have succeeded in getting their organisation, called the Church of Kopimism, recognised as a religion by the Swedish authorities.

 The movement has been trying to gain official recognition for their beliefs in sharing and data copying since 2010. The church's name comes from "Kopimi", pronounced "copy me". The organisation believes that communication and sharing is sacred and needs to be respected. They also think it is wrong to monitor and eavesdrop on people. The church has applied for official status a number of times and had its request denied, most recently in July 2011.

 However, just before Christmas Kopimism was approved as an official religion (as opposed to a sect), although founder Isak Gerson and chairman Gustav Nipe only opened the letter containing the news yesterday. Before being approved by the National Judicial Board for Public Lands & Funds, the church was required to formalise its way of praying or meditation.

 Founder and philosophy student Isak Gerson told Wired.co.uk: "Our main ritual is the act of copying and connecting with each other by sharing information."

 He added: "Just being recognised by the state of Sweden will help strengthen our identity."

 The new religious status doesn't make file sharing legal for Kopimists -- although there are a few exemptions from some laws for religions in Sweden -- but Gerson hopes that their beliefs may be considered in future legislation. The next step for the organisation is, according to Gerson, to "develop our religious practice".

 For more information about Kopimism, check out the church's website. ||||| Since 2010 a group of self-confessed pirates have tried to get their beliefs recognized as an official religion in Sweden. After their request was denied several times, the Church of Kopimism - which holds CTRL+C and CTRL+V as sacred symbols - is now approved by the authorities as an official religion. The Church hopes that its official status will remove the legal stigma that surrounds file-sharing.

 All around the world file-sharers are being chased by anti-piracy outfits and the authorities, and the situation in Sweden is no different. While copyright holders are often quick to label file-sharers as pirates, there is a large group of people who actually consider copying to be a sacred act.

 Philosophy student Isak Gerson is such a religious file-sharer, and in an attempt to protect his unique belief system he founded The Missionary Church of Kopimism in 2010. In the hope that they could help prevent persecution for their beliefs, the Church then filed a request to be officially accepted by the authorities.

 After two failed attempts, where the Church was asked to formalize its way of praying or meditation, the authorities finally recognized the organization as an official religion. The Church’s founder is ecstatic about this news, and hopes that it will motivate more people to come forward as ‘Kopimists’.

 “I think that more people will have the courage to step out as Kopimists. Maybe not in the public, but at least to their close ones,” Isak tells TorrentFreak. “There’s still a legal stigma around copying for many. A lot of people still worry about going to jail when copying and remixing. I hope in the name of Kopimi that this will change.”

 Although the formal status of the Church doesn’t mean that copyright infringement is now permitted, the Church’s founder hopes that their beliefs will be considered in future lawmaking.

 During the last half year the Missionary Church of Kopimism tripled its members from 1,000 to 3,000 and it’s expected that the recent news will cause another surge in followers. Official member or not, Gerson encourages everyone with an Internet connection to keep on sharing.

 “We confessional Kopimists have not only depended on each other in this struggle, but on everyone who is copying information. To everyone with an internet connection: Keep copying. Maintain hardline Kopimi,” Gerson concludes.

 Prospective followers who embrace the same calling are of course welcome to join the movement, free of charge. |||||
What is a shorter version of the above article?

– Sweden may not condone file-sharing—it's still illegal—but the country is officially OK with belief in the practice. Some 3,000 passionate file-sharers have gotten their beliefs recognized as an official religion. The Missionary Church of Kopimism—as in, "copy-me-ism"—has sought official status in Sweden since 2010, and it's finally won the battle, TorrentFreak reports. The decision follows a pair of rejections; authorities wanted Kopimism to define its prayer practices. "Our main ritual is the act of copying and connecting with each other by sharing information," the church's founder tells Wired. Now, Isak Gerson says, "more people will have the courage to step out as Kopimists. Maybe not in the public, but at least to their close ones." He hopes that the recognition will have an effect on future legislation surrounding file-sharing. Meanwhile, he has some advice for fellow believers: "Keep copying. Maintain hardline Kopimi."