An analysis of a decade’s worth of CNN, MSNBC and Fox News coverage by The GDELT Project shows the flatlining focus on LGBT+ issues on all three networks coinciding with the 2016 election, when Trump began to dominate the news agenda.
The analysis, drawing on transcripts from the Television News Archive, looked at the frequency with which terms like gay, lesbian, transgender, LGBT and queer are mentioned.
The analysts wrote: “Starkly apparent is that mentions have almost disappeared across all three stations since November 2016.”
According to PinkNews‘ analysis of the data set, between July 2009 and July 2016 – when Donald Trump became the Republican nominee – around 0.43 percent of MSNBC airtime, 0.32 percent of CNN airtime, and 0.20 percent of Fox News airtime was dedicated to discussions including the LGBT+ keywords.
Since August 2016, however, coverage has declined by three-quarters, with only 0.06 percent of MSNBC airtime, 0.08 percent of CNN airtime and 0.07 percent of Fox News airtime including the same keywords.
The frequency of LGBT+ keyphrases has declined significantly since Donald Trump began to dominate the news agenda
The percentages are likely to significantly underestimate the total amount of coverage dedicated to LGBT+ issues, as the data only records blocks of time where specific key phrases are used.
However, the analysts said that it would be “highly unusual for all three stations to change their terminology overnight and especially coincidental that this abrupt transition occurred immediately after Trump’s election”.
Coverage has flatlined since the 2016 election
Prior to Trump taking office, coverage saw occasional spikes that appear to correlate with the 2012 election and showdowns at the US Supreme Court on issues including marriage equality.
However, Trump’s anti-LGBT+ policies and an impending Supreme Court showdown over whether LGBT+ people are legally protected from discrimination appear to have generated little additional attention by comparison.
Despite the lack of coverage on TV news channels, Google search data from the same time period shows a steady increase in interest of LGBT+ issues.
The GDELT Project noted: “The most likely explanation is that in a world defined by chaos, television news has simply shifted its coverage priorities. Though this has substantial ramifications with respect to raising awareness of LGBTQ issues.”
The Arizona Supreme Court has ruled the City of Phoenix cannot apply its LGBT-inclusive Human Rights Ordinance to penalize a local business for refusing to make custom-made invitations for a same-sex wedding, delivering a victory for groups seeking to justify anti-LGBT discrimination in the name of “religious freedom.”
In a 4-3 decision written Justice Andrew Gould, the court determines the guarantee of freedom of religion and speech under the Arizona state constitution permits Joanna Duka and Breanna Koski, owners of Brush & Nib Studios, LC, to deny services to same-sex couples.
“Duka and Koski’s beliefs about same-sex marriage may seem old-fashioned, or even offensive to some,” Gould writes. “But the guarantees of free speech and freedom of religion are not only for those who are deemed sufficiently enlightened, advanced, or progressive. They are for everyone.”
The court issued its determination based on Article 2, Section of the Arizona Constitution, as well as Arizona’s Free Exercise of Religion Act. The court didn’t issue the decision on grounds of the First Amendment under the U.S. Constitution, even though the anti-LGBT legal firm Alliance Defending Freedom, which is defending the business, argued the case on those grounds.
The ruling finds freedom of speech under the Arizona state constitution is broader than the freedom of speech afforded under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
“In examining the text of Arizona’s free speech clause, we first observe that whereas the First Amendment is phrased as a constraint on government…our state’s provision, by contrast, is a guarantee of the individual right to ‘freely speak, write, and publish,’ subject only to constraint for the abuse of that right,” Gould writes. “Thus, by its terms, the Arizona Constitution provides broader protections for free speech than the First Amendment.”
The ruling marks another win for anti-LGBT groups seeking to justify the detail of services to LGBT people in the name of religious freedom. Last month, the U.S. Eighth Circuit of Court of Appeals found in the Telemedia Media Case business could invoke a First Amendment right to refuse to make video for same-sex weddings.
Jonathan Scruggs, senior counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, crowed in victory in a statement following the the decision from the Arizona Supreme Court in favor of the business owners.
“Joanna and Breanna work with all people; they just don’t promote all messages,” Scruggs said. “They, like all creative professionals, should be free to create art consistent with their convictions without the threat of government punishment. Instead, government must protect the freedom of artists to choose which messages to express through their own creations. The court was right to find that protections for free speech and religion protect the freedom of creative professionals to choose for themselves what messages to express through their custom artwork.”
According to Alliance Defending Freedom, the owners of Brush & Nib Studios, LC were under threat of up to six months of jail time, $2,500 in fines, and three years of probation for each day the city would find them in violation of the law.
Writing the dissent in the case was Justice James Baker, who determined the City of Phoenix has a compelling interest in enforcing its ordinance against business seeking to deny wedding-related services for same-sex couples.
“Our constitutions and laws do not entitle a business to discriminate among customers based on its owners’ disapproval of certain groups, even if that disapproval is based on sincerely held religious beliefs,” Baker writes. “In holding otherwise, the majority implausibly characterizes a commercially prepared wedding invitation as ‘pure speech’ on the part of the business selling the product and discounts the compelling public interest in preventing discrimination against disfavored customers by businesses and other public accommodations.”
Gould takes another approach to the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision, asserting the decision would an allow religious and speech exemptions to a non-discrimination ordinance.
“Masterpiece Cakeshop did not hold that public accommodations laws were immunefrom free exercise exemptions; rather, it clearly contemplated that someexemptions, if narrowly confined, were permissible,” Gould writes. “And while we must, in determining whether plaintiffs’ invitations are entitled to an exemption from the ordinance, consider the impact on the City’s nondiscrimination purpose, we must also consider the effect of compelling plaintiffs to create these invitations.”
Justin Unga, deputy campaign director for the Human Rights Campaign, said in a statement the ruling was “an alarming decision that puts the state’s people, reputation, and economy at risk.”
“For years, Arizona’s economic councils, lawmakers, and leaders from every community, including faith and business leaders, worked together to build an Arizona that is open to everyone and attracts investments from across the country,” Unga said. “Not only does this decision affect countless LGBTQ Arizonans, it sends a message about inclusivity to businesses and institutions seeking to invest in states that welcome all people. Today’s decision could also open the door for discrimination against other communities protected by the ordinance including religious minorities and women.”
Julie Watters, a spokesperson for the City of Phoenix, said in a statement the Phoenix “is still a legal, valid law and remains in effect” and the ruling is limited to a solitary business.
“The Arizona Supreme Court made a very narrow ruling that one local business has the right to refuse to make custom wedding invitations for same-sex couples’ weddings that are similar to the designer’s previous products,” Watters said. “This ruling does not apply to any other business in Phoenix. The city of Phoenix has had an anti-discrimination ordinance since 1964 to protect all residents and believes that everyone should be treated equally.”
In response to a Blade inquiry on whether the city will be filed before the U.S. Supreme Court, Watters said “everything is currently being evaluated by our legal team.”
Alessandra Soler, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, echoed the sense the ruling was limited. The ACLU filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case.
“While today’s limited decision from the Arizona Supreme Court is disappointing, it does not grant businesses a license to discriminate,” Soler said. “Discrimination has no place in our state, and we call on all local businesses to make it clear that they are open to all. We’ll keep fighting to ensure protections for LGBT Arizonans so that no one can be fired from their job, denied a place to live, or be turned away from a business simply because of who they are and who they love.”
Rep. Greg Stanton (D-Ariz.), who served as Phoenix’s mayor when the city passed its Human Relations Ordinance in 2013, also condemned the decision.
“This is a shameful day for Arizona,” Stanton said. “Four years after the U.S. Supreme Court held that same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry, the state Supreme Court has decided that cities cannot safeguard those same couples from active and harmful discrimination by corporations. This is backwards, dark-ages thinking.”
Months after joining the gay-friendly Hotlanta Softball League, Gerald Bostock was out of a job in a Georgia county government office and was convinced he had become the victim of workplace discrimination based on his sexual orientation.
Proud of his job as an advocate for children caught up in the juvenile justice system in Clayton County in suburban Atlanta, Bostock said he was shocked when he was abruptly fired in 2013, an action that figures prominently in a major LGBTQ rights fight coming before the U.S. Supreme Court next month.
“I was devastated. I had just lost the job I had loved – my passion. I lost my source of income. I lost my medical insurance,” Bostock, 55, said in an interview at the house he shares with his partner in Doraville, located just northeast of the capital city of this southern U.S. state.
A rainbow-colored gay pride flag flutters outside.
Bostock, who was recovering from prostate cancer at the time, was escorted out of the Clayton County Youth Development and Justice Center building after being fired, and never returned. “I don’t even remember driving home,” Bostock said.
He believes that joining the league drew attention to his sexual orientation and that his firing was motivated by anti-gay sentiment. The county has denied it discriminated against Bostock and defended its decision to fire him.
The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on Oct. 8 in three related cases including Bostock’s on whether gay and transgender people are protected from workplace discrimination by a landmark civil rights law.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sex as well as race, color, national origin and religion. At issue in these three cases is whether the protections against sex discrimination cover gay and transgender people.
Bostock, after losing in lower courts, is asking the conservative-majority Supreme Court to let him bring a federal discrimination lawsuit against the county seeking monetary damages over his firing.
A ruling in favor of Bostock would give gay and transgender workers greater protections, especially in the 28 states including Georgia that do not have comprehensive measures on the books against employment discrimination. A ruling against him would mean gay and transgender people in those states would have few options if they encounter workplace discrimination.
Republican President Donald Trump’s administration, reversing the government’s position taken under Democratic former President Barack Obama, has joined conservative religious groups in arguing that Title VII does not offer protections relating to sexual orientation or gender identity.
“I’m willing to be the one to stand up so that anyone that wants to work or has the ability to work can do so without living in fear of being fired for who you are or who you love,” Bostock said.
Bostock worked for Clayton County for a decade – managing a program to recruit volunteers to help represent the interests of children in the criminal justice system – until being fired after he started participating in the recreational softball league for fun. The league was formed in 1981 as a “safe inclusive environment” for LGBT people to play softball.
Soon after joining the Hotlanta league, Bostock said, he heard at least one senior staff member in his office make negative comments about his sexual orientation.
Three months later, the county launched an audit of the program he managed. Bostock said the audit looked in part at his expenditures to take prospective volunteers out for dinner, including other participants in the Hotlanta league.
‘Non-discriminatory reasons’
A spokesman for Clayton County declined to comment on the firing, citing the ongoing litigation. But lawyers for the county said in court papers he was dismissed for “legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons” based on the audit.
“The county denies that Bostock’s sexual orientation was a motivating factor in its decision to conduct an audit of the program he managed or its decision to terminate his employment after the audit was completed,” the lawyers added.
The two other cases the Supreme Court will hear raise similar issues.
One involves a now-deceased New York skydiving instructor named Donald Zarda who was fired by his employer in 2010 after revealing he was gay. The other involves a Detroit funeral home’s bid to reverse a lower court’s ruling that it violated the Civil Rights Act by firing a transgender funeral director named Aimee Stephens after Stephens revealed plans to transition from male to female.
Big business, typically eager to avoid liability in employment disputes, is backing the LGBTQ plaintiffs in the three cases. More than 200 companies, including Amazon, Alphabet Inc’s Google and Bank of America Corp, joined a friend-of-the-court brief asking the justices to rule in favor of the plaintiffs.
The current patchwork of state and local anti-discrimination laws harms the ability of businesses to recruit and retain top talent, the companies argued.
“Businesses and their employees all benefit from the consistency and predictability that uniform federal law provides nationwide,” the companies said in their brief.
The definition of ‘sex’
The legal fight centers on the definition of “sex” in the Civil Rights Act.
The plaintiffs and civil rights groups have argued that discriminating against gay and transgender workers is based on their sex and, thus, unlawful. The Trump administration and the three employers accused of discrimination have argued that Congress did not intend for Title VII to protect gay and transgender people when it passed the law.
“The courts don’t get to rewrite the law. They get to apply it,” said John Bursch, a lawyer with the conservative Christian legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, who will argue at the court on behalf of employer R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc in the transgender case.
The Supreme Court delivered a landmark gay rights decision in 2015 legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide. But its dynamics on LGBTQ issues have changed following the 2018 retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy, a conservative who backed gay rights in several major cases and wrote the same-sex marriage ruling.
The Title VII cases represent the court’s first major test on gay and transgender rights since Trump appointed conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh to replace Kennedy on a court with a 5-4 conservative majority, with the four liberal justices sympathetic to LGBTQ rights. Kavanaugh, whose approach to gay rights is unclear, could provide a pivotal vote.
Trump, strongly supported by evangelical Christian voters, has undermined gay and transgender rights since taking office in 2017. His administration has supported the right of certain businesses to refuse to serve gay people on the basis of religious objections to gay marriage, restricted transgender service members in the military and rescinded protections on bathroom access for transgender students in public schools.
Now working as a mental health counsellor at nearby Georgia Regional Hospital, Bostock said he will not give up his fight for gay rights even if the Supreme Court rules against him.
“I’m a firm believer,” Bostock said, “in throwing positivity out into the universe.”
US vice president Mike Pence addressed a fundraiser for an anti-LGBT hate group that has linked gay people to paedophiles, a week after the White House denied he is homophobic.
On Thursday, September 13, Pence was the headline speaker at the black tie gala for evangelical group Concerned Women of America, which lobbies against LGBT+ inclusion.
Anti-extremism watchdog Southern Poverty Law Center notes that the grouphas claimed that “gay marriage entices children to experiment with homosexuality”, and that “homosexuality carries enormous physical and mental health risks”.
The CWA has claimed: “Homosexual activists use same-sex ‘marriage’ as a political juggernaut to indoctrinate young children in schools to reject their parent’s values and to harass, sue and punish people who disagree.”
The $100-a-head gala was hosted at the Trump International Hotel in Washington DC, and was also addressed by Second Lady Karen Pence and anti-LGBT+ Republican Mike Huckabee.
He said: “The source of our prosperity is that foundation of faith and ideals of the American people, things the CWA has been all about from the beginning. President Trump has been busy strengthening the constitutional foundation and the commitment to those ideals from day one.
“I promise you, this is an administration that will always defend the freedom of religion of every American.
“The president promised back in 2016 to defend your right to fully practice your religion as individuals, as business owners, and as academic institutions, and that’s exactly what we’ve done.”
A married gay couple are taking legal action against a Trump administration policy that has hindered their baby daughter’s fight for US citizenship.
Roee and Adiel Kiviti, who are both US citizens, ran into trouble with the State Department after welcoming baby Kessem via a surrogate in Canada earlier this year.
The couple are both listed on Kessem’s Canadian birth certificate, but the State Department treats the children of same-sex couples as “born out of wedlock,” only recognising her link to biological father Adiel.
The out-of-wedlock status has hindered the application for the birthright citizenship that she would be entitled to if her parents were recognised as a married couple.
A lawsuit filed on behalf of the couple on Thursday (September 12) says that the State Department’s “unjust policies and practices… unconstitutionally disregard the dignity and equality of the marriages of same-sex couples, and unlawfully discriminate against children simply because their married parents are a same-sex couple.”
Trump administration treating gay couple’s family as ‘second-class citizens’
Roee and Adiel Kiviti said: “The focus here is our little girl whose rights are being infringed upon by our government.
“Every parent wants to protect their child, to give them assurances of tomorrow, and this policy isn’t letting us do that. Our daughter will know her story.
“She will know how she came into this world, she will know about all of the loving people who helped us become a family, and she will know how her parents fought for her rights and for the rights of other families.”
The legal action is supported by Immigration Equality and LGBT+ non-profit Lambda Legal.
Aaron C. Morris of Immigration Equality said: “This is a fight for marriage equality. It is a fight for the fundamental right of citizenship.
“By refusing to recognise their rights as a married couple, the State Department is treating Roee and Adiel as second-class citizens and treating Kessem as if she is not a citizen at all.
“The administration has made abundantly clear it will ignore the law and Constitution. We will not stand for it.”
‘Cruel and un-American’ policy denies rights to baby of US citizens
Omar Gonzalez-Pagan of Lambda Legal said: “Kessem was born to two dads. By refusing to recognize Kessem as a US citizen at birth, the Department of State seeks to erase her family ties and to disrespect Roee’s and Adiel’s marriage.
“This is not only unlawful, it is also cruel and un-American.
“The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that same-sex couples are entitled to the same constellation of benefits linked to marriage as different-sex couples.
“The government cannot refuse to recognize Roee’s and Adiel’s marriage, nor Kessem’s citizenship at birth. We will fight for the dignity of all LGBT families.”
Roee and Adiel were both born in Israel. Roee has been a naturalised US citizen since 2001, but Adiel had only lived in the US for four years and ten months when Kessem was born, which is below the five-year requirement for birthright citizenship.
Speaking to The Daily Beast, Roee said: “This is about singling out LGBT Americans—this is about telling gay and lesbian parents, ‘OK, you got marriage, but we know that you’re different. We know that you are not like us, and we’re going to treat you differently’.
“Today it’s our family—tomorrow it’s going to be someone else’s family.”
Adiel added: “We have no other choice but to fight for justice for Kessem.”
Federal investigators are probing the conduct and practices of Mithril Capital, a venture capital firm co-founded by Peter Thiel, Recode has learned.
US officials — including the FBI — have in recent months questioned some people close to Mithril regarding concerns of possible financial misconduct at the firm, according to people familiar with the matter who insisted on anonymity given its sensitivity. Mithril confirmed in a statement that its lawyers are in touch with government authorities.
Mithril’s leader, Ajay Royan, has worked with Thiel for almost two decades and has used that relationship to raise over $1 billion. And while the probe is in the early stages, it threatens to destabilize the world of Thiel, who heads an enormously influential network of tech investors, startup founders, and political allies across Silicon Valley.
There’s much more at the link.
Thiel is the billionaire co-founder of PayPal and currently sits on Facebook’s board.
In 2016, he spoke in support of Trump at the Republican National Convention and donated heavily to Trump’s campaign.
He is perhaps most infamous outside of the business world for having sued Gawker into oblivion for outing him.
Dan Bishop, the North Carolina legislator and lead sponsor of the notorious ‘bathroom bill’, has won a congressional seat in a narrow victory over his Democratic opponent.
A special district election was held as the 2018 election was nullified due to allegations of voter fraud on behalf of the Republican candidate Mark Harris, an anti-LGBT+ minister.
Harris stepped down and Bishop ran in his place with a campaign supporting Trump’s border wall, gun ownership, Christian values and a ban on late-term abortions.
Bishop won the Republican stronghold by just under two points – 50.6 percent to 48.8 percent – having gained supporters in the staunchly Conservative state over his backing of the ‘bathroom bill’.
Also known as HB2, the bathroom bill was signed into law in North Carolina in 2016, forcing trans people to use toilets in accordance with the gender marked on their birth certificate.
The legislation was widely denounced as discriminatory and prompted a huge backlash from businesses and celebrities, including Ringo Starrand Bruce Springsteen.
A federal lawsuit was launched by civil rights groups,and the law was struck down in July this year with a judge ruling that trans and non-binary people in North Carolina must be allowed to use the public bathrooms of their choice.
The Human Rights Campaign and CNN will host Power of Pride, a Democratic presidential town hall focused on LGBTQ issues in October.
The town hall will take place on Thursday, October 10, the night before the 21st annual National Coming Out Day, at The Novo in Los Angeles. It will air live on CNN. Confirmed participants will include former Vice President Joe Biden, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, former Secretary Julian Castro, Senator Kamala Harris, Senator Amy Klobuchar and Senator Elizabeth Warren.
This marks the first time a Democratic presidential town hall will be devoted solely to LGBTQ issues and will be the first time a major cable news network will air a presidential event focused on LGBTQ issues.
HRC President Alphonso David said in a statement: “For nearly 40 years, the Human Rights Campaign has fought to realize a world in which LGBTQ people are safe, equal and free in every aspect of our lives. Today, at a time when our most basic civil rights and democratic values are under attack, our work has never been more urgent. We are eager to hear from this field of Democratic presidential candidates about how they plan to win full federal equality, defend the fundamental equality of LGBTQ people, and protect the most vulnerable among us — both here in the United States and around the globe — from stigma, institutional inequality, discrimination, and violence.”
The audience will include HRC members, supporters and community leaders. Tickets are invitation only.
A woman accused of hacking Capital One and at least 30 other organizations is a flight risk, a threat and should be kept locked up until her trial, U.S. prosecutors said in court documents filed ahead of a Friday detention hearing in Seattle.
Paige Thompson, a former Amazon software engineer who goes by the online alias “erratic,” has a history of stalking and threatening to kill people and to get herself killed by police, prosecutors said in the documents.
Police in Mountain View, California, said she also threatened to shoot up an undisclosed company in May, while she was living with a convicted felon who had a stockpile of pistols, rifles and ammunition.
Lawyers for Thompson, a 33-year-old transgender woman, denied that she is violent and said she should be released to a halfway house where she would have better access to mental health care. Citing a doctor, they say her safety is at risk in the male facility.
“The risk of being continuously misgendered and becoming a target for intimidation by other inmates is likely increased in a male facility,” Dr. Matt Goldenberg wrote.
Authorities say Thompson previously has been the subject of an extreme risk protection order due to mental illness issues. State red flag laws permit police or family to petition a court to remove firearms from a person deemed to be a danger to themself or others.
“In today’s America, it is easy enough to obtain firearms, and there is every reason to be concerned that Thompson, who repeatedly has threatened to kill, would obtain the means to carry out … her threats – particularly when confronted with the alternative of near-certain conviction and imprisonment,” prosecutors said in their motion.
Thompson was charged in July with accessing personal information on 106 million Capital One credit card holders earlier this year.
The financial corporation said among the information obtained by the hacker was 140,000 Social Security numbers and 80,000 bank account numbers. It said no credit card account numbers or log-in credentials were compromised.
The breach was among the largest on record involving a major U.S. financial institution. Thompson had talked about the hack online in chat groups, authorities say.
At least 40 lawsuits have been filed in the U.S. against Capital One following the breach, saying it failed to protect consumers. Eight other suits were filed in Canada.
Seattle police were granted the risk order against Thompson in May 2018. Four months later, two of Thompson’s former friends secured a protection order against her, saying she had stalked and harassed them.
Sarah Stensberg told police that Thompson left voice messages and several text messages, including one that listed Stensberg’s address and read, “rest in peace.” Stensberg said Thompson also stalked her on social media.
In May, Thompson focused on a California social media business and sent a series of Twitter messages to a former Amazon co-worker, according to police.
“I feel bad, when my cat dies, I’m going to California to shoot up (REDACTED) office I hope you are not there,” the message said. “Sorry. But it has to be done.”
The message continued: “I like you but I can’t let you stand in the way of what has to be done.”
The person responded, police said, and Thompson wrote back: “maybe spd could do something kind and come over and shoot me.”
Mountain View police sought help from Seattle police and they informed Thompson’s case manager and made a referral to a designated crisis responder.
Thompson’s lawyers said the Seattle police officer wrote in a report, “I am familiar with Paige Thompson and my unit has a response plan for her,” and found she had no means or money to travel to California.
A Kentucky print shop owner who refused to make a gay pride T-shirt argued before the Kentucky Supreme Court that he shouldn’t be compelled to promote messages that go against his religious beliefs.
Blaine Adamson is owner of Hands-On Originals in Lexington and declined to print a shirt promoting an LGBT pride festival in 2012. The city’s Human Rights Commission said that refusal violated its gay-rights fairness ordinance.
On Friday, the high court heard an attorney for the T-shirt maker argue that the First Amendment protects him from having to print that message. An attorney for the Human Rights Commission says the T-shirt maker cannot pick and choose who it wants to serve in the Lexington community.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments from attorneys and will issue a ruling at a later date.
