Mediaboss Marketing

Twitter shares jump amid news of CEO Jack Dorsey stepping down. FOX Business' Susan Li with more updates.

New Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal was thrust into the spotlight on Monday when Jack Dorsey announced he would step down from the position in a surprise decision that puts a man who once declared the company is "not to be bound by the First Amendment" in charge of the social media juggernaut.

Agrawal, who was Twitter's chief technology officer until the social media giant's board unanimously appointed him to replace Dorsey, was quickly praised by his successor.

New Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal was thrust into the spotlight on Monday when Jack Dorsey announced he would step down. (Twitter) (Twitter | Istock)

TWITTER CEO JACK DORSEY TO STEP DOWN

"Hes been my choice for some time given how deeply he understands the company and its needs," Dorsey wrote. "Parag has been behind every critical decision that helped turn this company around. Hes curious, probing, rational, creative, demanding, self-aware, and humble. He leads with heart and soul, and is someone I learn from daily. My trust in him as our CEO is bone deep."

Agrawal also took to Twitter with thoughts on his promotion.

"Im honored and humbled," he wrote to kick off a lengthy statement.

"We recently updated our strategy to hit ambitious goals, and I believe that strategy to be bold and right. But our critical challenge is how we work to execute it against and deliver results thats how well make Twitter the best it can be for our customers, shareholders, and for each of you."

TWITTER LAUNCHING CRYPTOCURRENCY-FOCUSED TEAM

Agrawal quickly learned what its like to run such a polarizing company, as one of his old tweets was unearthed moments after he was put in charge. Many thought a 2010 message sent by Agrawals verified account claimed all White people are racist and critics quickly mocked Twitter for the hire. However, it was revealed that he was simply quoting comedian Asif Mandvi from "The Daily Show," which Agrawal himself pointed out 11 years ago in a follow-up tweet.

Parag Agrawal joined twitter in 2011 and has been the companys CTO since 2017. (AP Photo/John Raoux)

Ironically, Agrawal now oversees a company that is infamous for helping cancel culture ruin careers of public figures who sent pre-fame tweets that were not simply the quote of a comedian.

"It's just wild that Twitter didn't wipe or at lest [sic] spotcheck its new CEO's past tweets considering how often old (and usually contextless) tweets get resurfaced on here to derail someone recently thrust into a position of power or fame," New York Times tech reporter Ryan Mac observed.

Reason senior editor Robby Soave wrote the Mandvi was harmless, but "something Agrawal said just one year ago is actually concerning" before sharing an Agrawal quote.

"Our role is not to be bound by the First Amendment, but our role is to serve a healthy public conversation and our moves are reflective of things that we believe lead to a healthier public conversation," Agrawal said in 2020 during an interview with Technology Reviews Editor-in-Chief Gideon Lichfield. "The kinds of things that we do about this is, focus less on thinking about free speech, but thinking about how the times have changed."

Jack Dorsey announced he would step down as Twitter CEO on Monday. (Credit: House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing screenshot)

Agrawal joined Twitter in 2011 and has been the companys CTO since 2017. In that role, he led Twitters technical strategy and improved "development velocity while advancing the state of Machine Learning across the company," the company said. He was previously Twitters first Distinguished Engineer and has been celebrated by the company for work across both across revenue and consumer engineering.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ON FOX BUSINESS

"Parag understands Twitter and appreciates the Company's unique potential. He has been instrumental in tackling our most important priorities, including accelerating our development velocity, and I know he'll hit the ground running to strengthen execution and deliver results. The Board has the utmost confidence in Parag," Twitter's incoming Independent Board Chair Bret Taylor, who is also president and COO of Salesforce, said in a statement.

Agrawal holds a Ph.D. in Computer Science fromStanford University. He earned his Bachelor's Degree in Computer Science and Engineering from theIndian Institute of Technology,Bombay.

Fox News Lucas Manfredi contributed to this report.

Read this article:
New Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal once said company is not to be bound by the First Amendment - Fox Business

During the South Dakota State University Students Association meeting Nov. 29, Senators were addressed by the director of the Wintrode Student Success Center, Jody Owen, as well as the Little International and Formula SAE clubs. The Senate also passed three new amendments and tabled another amendment until the Dec. 6 meeting.

Wintrode:

Jody Owen, director of the Wintrode Student Success Center and coordinator for undergraduate academic advising, spoke to the Senate Monday about the efficacy of the center.

We served more than 4,300 unique students at SDSU, which is about 43% of the undergraduate population, and had about 28,000 visits, Owen said about the 2020 to 2021 school year.

The Wintrode tutoring program offers in-person and virtual options to accommodate most students. According to Owen, students may earn between half a letter grade and a full letter grade higher when they regularly participate in supplemental instruction.

The center also offers early-alerts for grades. 93 percent of students who receive the alert will take steps to improve in the class, Owen said.

Little International:

The 99th Little I will be a two-day event held April 1 -2. The 98th Little I was held March 26 -27, 2021 and marked a return to in-person events after the 97th was canceled in 2020 due to COVID-19 concerns. The club expects a high turnout this year despite continued pandemic concerns in some localities.

Were looking at ramping up the fundraising and sponsorships and getting the word out to as many people as possible, Dalton Howe, the clubs treasurer, said.

Last year, the club received $8,000 from the Students Association.

Formula SAE:

In the Formula SAE club, students build formula-style race cars. The club has about a year to design and build the car. From there, the car will have to pass a series of tests to go on to the convention. At the convention, SDSU will compete with colleges from around the world.

This year, the team of about 40 active students are trying to transition to a new engine to fare better in the competition.

Amendments:

The Senate passed three new amendments Monday and tabled another. The first amendment was 21-7-A, which provided clarity on how QR codes are to be used on Students Association campaign material. The amendment requires QR codes to be correctly labeled on materials. The Senate recognizes QR codes as a way to help increase voter turnout, which was less than 20% in 2021.

The second amendment passed Monday, 21-8-A, will require future SA campaign posters to include Sponsored by the Students Association, rather than sponsored by the Office of Student Activities.

The third amendment passed recognizes November as Native American Heritage Month.

This month is focused on celebrating Native American people by highlighting contributions of Native people and also, highlighting different indigenous stories and culture, 21-13-R reads.

All three amendments passed unanimously.

A fourth amendment that was set to be voted on was tabled. 21-12-R is a move to reverse a South Dakota Board of Regents policy that restricts alcoholic beverages at athletic events by only allowing alcohol sales in box suites and lounge areas.

[UPD] sees tailgating as a problem. People will feel like they need to get drunk and will drink too much before the game, Senator Jonathon Sundet said about the SDBOR policy.

Sundet asked the Senate to postpone the vote to allow more time for revision.

Excerpt from:
SA in brief: Little International, Formula SAE and amendments - SDSU Collegian

People have been asking me why I havent been writing to the Readers Forum lately. I told them nothing has fire me up recently.

Well, Wilbert Clarks letter on Nov. 12 Read the Constitution for what it is did just that, fired me up.

First of all Clark, the definition of protest is: An action of expressing disapproval. The definition of insurrection is: A violent uprising. Jan. 6 was violent. Do you really want to argue that?

Secondly, you justify what happened by saying we the people own the federal buildings. We the people also own the public library, so can we the people just walk in and throw all the books on the floor and threaten to hang the workers? Are we animals?

And third, should I read the Constitution before or after the 27 amendments were added, because if you interpret the Constitution to believe that it will stand behind this mutiny on Jan. 6, then the Constitution needs a 28th Amendment added.

Maybe you should read the First Amendment that includes, the right of the people peaceably to assemble.

Its right there every morning at the top of this page.

Tina Blough

Roxbury

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

Read more:
Letter to the editor | Read the First Amendment | Readers Forum | tribdem.com - TribDem.com

Since 1947, one topic in education has regularly come up at the Supreme Court more often than any other: disputes over religion.

That year, in Everson v. Board of Education, the justices upheld a New Jersey law allowing school boards to reimburse parents for transportation costs to and from schools, including religious ones. According to the First Amendment, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof an idea courts often interpreted as requiring a wall of separation between church and state. In Everson, however, the Supreme Court upheld the law as not violating the First Amendment because children, not their schools, were the primary beneficiaries.

This became known as the child benefit test, an evolving legal idea used to justify state aid to students who attend religious schools. In recent years, the court has expanded the boundaries of what aid is allowed. Will it push them further?

This question will be in the spotlight Dec. 8, 2021, when the court hears arguments in a case from Maine, Carson v. Makin. Carson has drawn intense interest from educators and religious-liberty advocates across the country as illustrated by the large number of amicus curiae, or friend of the court, briefs filed by groups with interests in the outcome.

To the school choice movement which advocates affording families more options beyond traditional public schools Carson represents a chance for more parents to give their children an education in line with their religious beliefs. Opponents fear it could establish a precedent of requiring taxpayer dollars to fund religious teachings.

As a faculty member who focuses on education law, I have often written about the Supreme Courts decisions about religion in schools. In the almost 75 years since Everson, the courts thinking about aid to students who attend religious schools has evolved.

In 1993, justices heard Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District, which centered on a student who was deaf. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the public school board provided him with an interpreter. When he enrolled in a Catholic high school, the justices ruled that the board still had to provide him with an interpreter because this was a discrete service that assisted him and no one else. Ever since, the court has allowed greater aid to students attending religious schools.

Two recent judgments have continued that trend. In 2017s Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Comer, the court reasoned that states cannot deny religious people or religious institutions generally available public benefits simply because they are religious. Three years later, in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, the court invalidated a provision in the state constitution barring religious schools from public benefits solely because of the religious character of the schools. This decision meant parents in Montana who enrolled their children in faith-based schools could participate in a state tuition tax credit program.

Maines Constitution mandates the creation of public schools. But many rural towns dont have their own school system: In fact, of the 260 school administrative units in Maine, more than half lack a secondary school.

In areas without access to public schools, Maine allows students to attend other public or private schools at public expense, but not religious ones. The state requires approved schools to be nonsectarian, in accordance with the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Carson v. Makin arose when three sets of parents unsuccessfully filed suit on behalf of their children, arguing that the rule discriminated on the basis of religion. The federal trial court in Maine ruled in favor of the state, affirming that its tuitioning statute did not violate the rights of the parents or their children. On appeal, the First Circuit unanimously affirmed in favor of the state, rejecting all the parental claims.

First, the First Circuit decided the requirement that schools be nonsectarian did not discriminate solely based on religion or punish the plaintiffs rights to exercise their religion.

This is because the rule has a use-based limitation which may prove to be a crucial distinction. In other words, sectarian schools are denied funding not because of their religious identity, the First Circuit wrote, but because of the religious use that they would make of it.

It is wholly legitimate to restrict religion-based content, the court noted, because there is no question that Maine may require its public schools to provide a secular educational curriculum rather than a sectarian one.

[3 media outlets, 1 religion newsletter. Get stories from The Conversation, AP and RNS.]

The First Circuit also rejected the parental claims that Maines nonsectarian requirement violated their rights to freedom of speech, because it was enacted to provide students with secular secondary educations and does not commit to providing any open forum to encourage diverse views from private speakers.

Quoting Eulitt v. Maine, another case about Maines tuitioning system, the court noted: The fact that the state cannot interfere with a parents fundamental right to choose religious education for his or her child does not mean that the state must fund that choice.

School-choice advocates had hoped that Trinity Lutheran and Espinoza would strengthen the Maine parents case, since they upheld the idea that the First Amendment requires the government to extend general benefits to religious institutions or individuals, so long as it is not discriminating against or in favor of particular religions. But the courts differentiated these cases, and mused that if parents wish to forgo the free secular education Maine offers in its public schools or tuitioning program, they are free to pay tuition in the religious schools of their choice.

Carson is unlikely to end disagreements over the limits of using taxpayer funds to assist students who attend religious schools. However, it will likely provide an indication of the Supreme Courts position on the future of the child benefit test, as it seems to be softening on its attitude of maintaining a wall of separation between church and state when it comes to education and aid to students who attend religious schools.

Follow this link:
Money, schools and religion: A controversial combo returns to the Supreme Court - The Conversation US

The Animal Legal Defense Fund filed a complaint this month against an Oklahoma plant-based labeling law on behalf of Tofurky and the Plant Based Foods Association.

Its not the first time Tofurky and the Fund have teamed up to challenge plant-based labeling legislation: In the last couple of years, theyve also filed suits in Louisiana and Arkansas. But theres something different about the Oklahoma lawand that difference could make it trickier for plant-based producers to challenge.

Starting in 2018, a handful of U.S. states passed laws that restrict plant-based producers from using certain terms on their product labels. Missouri, the first state to pass such a law, attached fines and potential jail sentences to the use of the word meat on non-conventional product labels.

Laws like this have a chilling effect on the plant-based industry, Tofurkys president and CEO Jaime Athos told The Spoon in a recent Zoom interview. The specters of potential lawsuits and litigationespecially when you look at what the damages could amount tocan really influence peoples decision-making, he said.

The laws only apply in individual states, and the inconsistencies in labeling requirements from one state to the next can make interstate commerce for plant-based products unfeasible. It would be prohibitively expensive for many smaller companies to change their labels nationwide, and impossible or impractical to develop separate labels for separate states.

On paper, the rationale behind the laws has to do with something called consumer confusion: The idea that if plant-based producers are allowed to use terms like meat and burger, unwitting consumers will be tricked into buying their products.

But Athos pointed out that plant-based meat products like Tofurkys have been around for decades. People today are familiar with the use of terms like veggie burger to describe plant-based products, he saidand those terms can actually help consumers to understand how to use a new product.

As one of the older players in the plant-based space, Tofurky has stepped up to pursue multiple challenges against different states labeling laws. I think a lot of the confidence to take the fight on comes from being in the business for a long time, Athos said. We can see the absurdity of being told that we have to change the names of our products, which people have eaten millions and millions of iterations of without any confusion or complaint for decades now. I think it does put us in a different frame of mind than a newer company would have.

Tofurky and other groups have challenged speech bans under the First Amendment, arguing that they unfairly prohibit truthful commercial speech. And because the U.S. places a strong value on free speech, it takes a lot to defend a speech restriction, according to Amanda Howell, who is a senior staff attorney at the Animal Legal Defense Fund.

If the law is a complete ban on speech, the defendants have to show that that law is serving a substantial government interest, Howell saidand that theres no alternative to banning speech that could also serve that government interest.

Tofurky and the Animal Legal Defense Fund have had some success in challenging labeling laws under the First Amendment. Last year, a federal court granted an injunction to Tofurky in an Arkansas case, halting the enforcement of that states labeling law. The court said we were likely to win with a First Amendment challenge, because the law is unconstitutionally restrictive, Howell said.

Oklahomas Meat Consumer Protection Act was passed last year to fanfare from the states cattlemens association, which described the law as one of its lead priorities in a press release. Its safe to say that industry interests influenced the law: One of the legislators who introduced it has won the Oklahoma Cattlemens Associations highest award.

None of the Oklahoma state legislators who sponsored the law responded to The Spoons requests for comment.

The Meat Consumer Protection Act doesnt ban the use of certain words outright. Instead, it requires plant-based meat and dairy companies to disclose the vegan or vegetarian nature of their products on their product labels. It also mandates that those disclosure statements be as large and prominent as the names of the products.

To challenge this kind of law under the First Amendment, it would be up to the plaintiff to prove that the legislation isnt serving a reasonable government interest. Plant-based producer Uptons Naturals and the Plant Based Foods Association have already tried to challenge the law on First Amendment grounds, but were denied an injunction last year.

Now Tofurky and the Animal Legal Defense Fund have taken over the suit. Theyre taking a different approach, arguing that the law is unconstitutional for three key reasons: First, there are already federal laws concerning food product labels, which should take precedence over the state law. Second, the language of the law is vague, which could mean that it gets enforced in an arbitrary, discriminatory way. And third, the law puts a burden on interstate commerce by creating a patchwork of different state laws.

Though Howell was confident about the Funds arguments in the case, she expressed concern that the Oklahoma law might set a new precedent for other states. Legislators may see that these bans on speech are uphill battles, and stop pursuing them because of the burden to show a government interest, she said. And if that happens, the next wave of these laws might be disclosure laws like Oklahomas, which would create a patchwork.

While Tofurky and the Plant Based Foods Association pursue the legal challenge, the Association is also working on mounting collective action to discourage legislators from supporting labeling laws in the first place.

The Oklahoma case will likely serve as a signal to other state legislatures. We may see more states pick up disclosure requirements like Oklahomas, hoping to discourage challenges. But success for Tofurky could send a message that it just isnt worth it for states to spend money defending plant-based labeling laws.

Related

Here is the original post:
Tofurky and the Plant Based Foods Association Are Challenging an Oklahoma Plant-Based Labeling Law - The Spoon