violate

Sept. 19 (UPI) — Russian fighter jets on Friday flew into Estonian airspace for 12 minutes, a move the country called a “brazen intrusion.”

Estonia’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Margus Tsahkna confirmed the “violation of Estonia’s airspace,” in a statement on X.

“Three Russian MiG-31s entered our airspace over the Gulf of Finland for 12 minutes. This is an unprecedented and brazen intrusion – clear proof of Russia’s growing aggression,” Tsahkna said in the post.

“Such actions cannot be tolerated and must be met with swift political and economic pressure.”

Tsahkna said Estonia would be summoning Russia’s top diplomat to demand an explanation.

The incursion by the Russian supersonic interceptor aircraft marks the fourth such violation of Estonian airspace so far this year.

“Russia has already violated Estonia’s airspace four times this year, which in itself is unacceptable. But today’s incursion, involving three fighter aircraft entering our airspace is unprecedentedly brazen,” Tsahkna said in a statement.

“Russia’s increasingly extensive testing of boundaries and growing aggressiveness must be met with a swift increase in political and economic pressure.”

The Russian military had not commented publicly on the report as of noon Friday.

International lawmakers quickly pledged support for Estonia.

“Russia is showing the full extent of its contempt for diplomacy and international law,”

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said on X.

“Europe stands with Estonia in the face of Russia’s latest violation of our airspace. We will respond to every provocation with determination while investing in a stronger Eastern flank. As threats escalate, so too will our pressure. I call on EU leaders to swiftly approve our 19th sanctions package.”

The news comes as Russia overnight launched some 90 drones in a major attack on Ukraine.

United States television host Jimmy Kimmel’s live show was pulled off the air by Disney-owned ABC after he made comments about conservative influencer Charlie Kirk, who was fatally shot last week in what has been deemed by right-wingers in the US a political assassination.

But critics claim Kimmel’s removal is a violation of his free speech rights, which are enshrined under the US Constitution’s First Amendment.

On Thursday, hundreds of Kimmel fans gathered on the streets in Burbank, New York and Hollywood, protesting the removal of his show.

Here is a closer look at what happened and what the US Constitution says about free speech rights.

What happened to Jimmy Kimmel?

Conservative influencer Charlie Kirk was shot and killed in front of a crowd of about 3,000 people on September 10 while he was speaking at a university event in Utah.

After a 33-hour manhunt, 22-year-old Tyler Robinson was arrested on suspicion of killing Kirk. Robinson has since been charged with aggravated murder.

Some right-wing figures, affiliated with US President Donald Trump’s MAGA (Make America Great Again) wing, have described Robinson as “left-wing”.

On Monday, Kimmel said on his show: “The MAGA gang (is) desperately trying to characterise this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.”

Kimmel continued, criticising the response by Trump – who described Kirk as being “like a son” – to his death. “This is not how an adult grieves the murder of someone he calls a friend. This is how a four-year-old mourns a goldfish,” Kimmel said.

Following a backlash, broadcasters Nexstar and Sinclair said they would pull Kimmel’s late-night show from their affiliated stations.

Brendan Carr, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), also said he had a strong case for taking legal action against Kimmel, Disney and ABC.

Anna Gomez, the only Democrat on the FCC, criticised Carr’s response in an interview with CNN. “This administration is increasingly using the weight of government power to suppress lawful expression,” Gomez said.

The FCC has the authority to grant licences to broadcasters, including ABC and its affiliated stations.

Democratic critics have said that pulling his show off the air is an infringement of Kimmel’s right to free speech, as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

What does the First Amendment say?

The First Amendment protects free speech from government interference. It states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

In 1963, the US Supreme Court issued a key ruling that the government cannot create a “system of informal censorship” by putting pressure on private companies.

This was issued after a Rhode Island agency had threatened to prosecute book and magazine distributors for selling publications it considered objectionable.

Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that, in such situations, plaintiffs must demonstrate that the government’s actions exceeded allowable persuasion and directly caused them harm.

Was the removal of Kimmel’s show unconstitutional?

Experts say Kimmel’s show being pulled is unconstitutional since it infringes the free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Ronnie London, a general counsel with free speech advocacy group Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, told PolitiFact that Carr’s actions are “a classic case of unconstitutional jawboning”, which means improperly using government threats to pursue policy goals.

“The FCC has long held that ‘the public interest is best served by permitting free expression of views,’” the FCC says on its website.

“Rather than suppress speech, communications law and policy seek to encourage responsive ‘counter-speech’ from others. Following this principle ensures that the most diverse and opposing opinions will be expressed, even though some views or expressions may be highly offensive.”

How have people reacted to Kimmel’s removal?

Many Democrats, politicians, Hollywood stars and fellow talk-show hosts have stressed the importance of protecting free speech rights.

Former US President Barack Obama shared a series of articles and commentary on X on Friday, saying: “This commentary offers a clear, powerful statement of why freedom of speech is at the heart of democracy and must be defended, whether the speaker is Charlie Kirk or Jimmy Kimmel, MAGA supporters or MAGA opponents.”

This commentary offers a clear, powerful statement of why freedom of speech is at the heart of democracy and must be defended, whether the speaker is Charlie Kirk or Jimmy Kimmel, MAGA supporters or MAGA opponents.

— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) September 19, 2025

In another post, Obama wrote: “This is precisely the kind of government coercion that the First Amendment was designed to prevent – and media companies need to start standing up rather than capitulating to it.”

Former late-night host David Letterman said during an event in New York on Thursday: “I feel bad about this, because we all see where this is going, correct? It’s managed media. It’s no good. It’s silly. It’s ridiculous.”

Ken Martin, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said in a statement: “The state under Donald Trump has amassed a chilling record of restricting speech, extorting private companies, and dropping the full weight of the government censorship hammer on First Amendment rights.”

Democratic California Senator Adam Schiff posted on X on Thursday: “This administration is responsible for the most blatant attacks on the free press in American history. What will be left of the First Amendment?”

By contrast, the suspension of Kimmel’s show has drawn celebration from the political right.

“Great News for America: The ratings challenged Jimmy Kimmel Show is CANCELLED,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform.

“Congratulations to ABC for finally having the courage to do what had to be done. Kimmel has ZERO talent, and worse ratings than even Colbert, if that’s possible. That leaves Jimmy and Seth, two total losers, on Fake News NBC,” Trump continued, referring to late-night show hosts Jimmy Fallon and Seth Meyers.

Conservative podcaster Megyn Kelly wrote on X on Thursday: “I’m not sure who needs to hear this but Jimmy Kimmel got on the air and falsely stated as a fact that Charlie Kirk’s killer was MAGA, smearing an entire movement and Trump in particular with a vile disgusting lie.”

Tom Brady was shown sitting in the Las Vegas Raiders coaching booth while wearing a headset during the team’s “Monday Night Football” game against the Chargers at Allegiant Stadium.

Brady is a minority owner of the Raiders. He also works as a booth analyst for NFL games broadcast on Fox, and the NFL has placed certain restrictions on him to prevent any conflicts of interest concerning his dual roles.

Yet the phrase “conflict of interest” has come up quite a bit on social media — go ahead, search it on X (formerly Twitter) — regarding the optics of an NFL broadcaster hanging out with Raiders coaches and apparently communicating with others in the organization through a headset,

The NFL said Tuesday, however, that Brady doesn’t appear to have done anything wrong.

“There are no policies that prohibit an owner from sitting in the coaches’ booth or wearing a headset during a game. Brady was sitting in the booth in his capacity as a limited partner,” NFL chief spokesperson Brian McCarthy said in a statement emailed to The Times. “All personnel sitting in the booth must abide by policies that prohibit the use of electronic devices other than league-issued equipment such as a Microsoft Surface Tablet for the Sideline Viewing System.”

Also during the Raiders’ 20-9 loss to the Chargers, ESPN’s Peter Schrager reported that Raiders offensive coordinator Chip Kelly told him that Brady speaks with Kelly multiple times a week to discuss game plans and break down film. Asked about the report after the game, Raiders coach Pete Carroll said it is “not accurate.”

“We have conversations — I talk to Tom, Chip talks to Tom — regularly,” Carroll said. “We have a tremendous asset and we all get along well and we respect each other. And so we just talk about life and football and whatever. … He has great insight and so we’re lucky to have him as an owner.”

During the 2024 season, Brady’s first as both a broadcaster and a team owner, he was not allowed to attend the weekly production meetings during which the Fox crew meets with coaches and players ahead of that week’s game. That restriction was lifted going into this season.

While McCarthy did not specifically answer a question from The Times about Kelly’s reported comment about his talks with Brady, it would appear that the NFL is confident that the restrictions it has in place would prevent Brady from acquiring any information any non-owner wouldn’t be able to gather.

“Tom continues to be prohibited from going to a team facility for practices or production meetings,” McCarthy said in his statement. “He may attend production meetings remotely but may not attend in person at the team facility or hotel. He may also conduct an interview off site with a player like he did last year a couple times, including for the Super Bowl. Of course, as with any production meeting with broadcast teams, it’s up to the club, coach or players to determine what they say in those sessions.”

Aug. 29 (UPI) — The U.S. Department of Education has said Denver Public Schools violated Title IX’s prohibition against sex discrimination by having all-gender bathrooms, amid the Trump administration’s targeting of LGBT rights in public spaces.

The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights opened its investigation into the school district in late January after learning a month before that East High School had converted a second-floor, multi-stall bathroom for girls into an all-gender bathroom.

The Office for Civil Rights determined the district violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 as there was no girls-only designated washroom on the floor, though there was a boys-only washroom.

The school attempted to rectify the situation by converting the boys restroom into a gender-neutral bathroom as well, but the federal Office for Civil Rights states this still violates Title IX “because males are still allowed to invade sensitive female-only facilities.”

It was unclear if any other bathrooms in the district’s some 200 schools were all-gender facilities.

The Department of Education said Thursday that the district’s Denver Public Schools’ LGBTQ+ Toolkit that allows students to use bathrooms that match their gender identity in violation of Title IX.

Craig Trainor, acting assistant secretary for civil rights at the Department of Education, said in a statement that by having a gender-neutral washroom at East High School, the district create “a hostile environment for its students by endangering their safety, privacy and dignity while denying them access to equal educational activities and opportunities.”

“Denver is free to endorse a self-defeating gender ideology, but it is not free to accept federal taxpayer funds and harm its students in violation of Title IX,” he said.

President Donald Trump ran on an anti-transgender platform, and since returning to the White House in January has taken several executive actions that affect the LGBTQ communit’s rights, including some that impact public schools.

Last month, the U.S. Department of Education found five northern Virginia school districts in violation of Title IX over their transgender bathroom and changing room policies.

Maine, California, Oregon and Minnesota have also been under Trump administration investigations over allowing transgender girls to participate on girls’ sports teams.

“In the name of ‘equity,’ Denver Public Schools converted a girls’ restroom into an all-gender facility — putting gender ideology above girls privacy and dignity,” DOE Secretary Linda McMahon said on X.

WASHINGTON — A plan to sell more than 3,200 square miles of federal lands has been ruled out of Republicans’ big tax and spending cut bill after the Senate parliamentarian determined the proposal by Senate Energy Chairman Mike Lee would violate the chamber’s rules.

Lee, a Utah Republican, has proposed selling millions of acres of public lands in the West to states or other entities for use as housing or infrastructure. The plan would revive a longtime ambition of Western conservatives to cede lands to local control after a similar proposal failed in the House earlier this year.

The proposal received a mixed reception Monday from the governors of Western states. New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, a Democrat, called it problematic in her state because of the close relationship residents have with public lands.

Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon, a Republican, voiced qualified support.

“On a piece-by-piece basis where states have the opportunity to craft policies that make sense … we can actually allow for some responsible growth in areas with communities that are landlocked at this point,” he said at a news conference in Santa Fe, New Mexico, where the Western Governors’ Association was meeting.

Lee, in a post on X Monday night, said he would keep trying.

“Housing prices are crushing families and keeping young Americans from living where they grew up. We need to change that,’’ he wrote, adding that a revised plan would remove all U.S. Forest Service land from possible sale. Sales of sites controlled by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management would be significantly reduced, Lee said, so that only land within 5 miles of population centers could be sold.

Environmental advocates celebrated the ruling late Monday by Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough, but cautioned that Lee’s proposal was far from dead.

“This is a victory for the American public, who were loud and clear: Public lands belong in public hands, for current and future generations alike,’’ said Tracy Stone-Manning, president of The Wilderness Society. “Our public lands are not for sale.”

Carrie Besnette Hauser, president and CEO of the nonprofit Trust for Public Land, called the procedural ruling in the Senate “an important victory in the fight to protect America’s public lands from short-sighted proposals that would have undermined decades of bipartisan work to protect, steward and expand access to the places we all share.”

“But make no mistake: this threat is far from over,” Hauser added. “Efforts to dismantle our public lands continue, and we must remain vigilant as proposals now under consideration,” including plans to roll back the bipartisan Great American Outdoors Act and cut funding for land and water conservation, make their way through Congress, she said.

MacDonough, the Senate parliamentarian, also ruled out a host of other Republican-led provisions Monday night, including construction of a mining road in Alaska and changes to speed permitting of oil and gas leases on federal lands.

While the parliamentarian’s rulings are advisory, they are rarely, if ever, ignored. Lawmakers are using a budget reconciliation process to bypass the Senate filibuster to pass President Trump’s tax-cut package by a self-imposed July Fourth deadline.

Lee’s plan revealed sharp disagreement among Republicans who support wholesale transfers of federal property to spur development and generate revenue, and other lawmakers who are staunchly opposed.

Land in 11 Western states from Alaska to New Mexico would be eligible for sale. Montana was carved out of the proposal after lawmakers there objected. In states such as Utah and Nevada, the government controls the vast majority of lands, protecting them from potential exploitation but hindering growth.

“Washington has proven time and again it can’t manage this land. This bill puts it in better hands,” Lee said in announcing the plan.

Housing advocates have cautioned that federal land is not universally suitable for affordable housing. Some of the parcels up for sale in Utah and Nevada under a House proposal were far from developed areas.

New Mexico Sen. Martin Heinrich, the ranking Democrat on the energy committee, said Lee’s plan would exclude Americans from places where they fish, hunt and camp.

“I don’t think it’s clear that we would even get substantial housing as a result of this,” Heinrich said earlier this month. “What I know would happen is people would lose access to places they know and care about and that drive our Western economies.”

Daly writes for the Associated Press.

Despite the order for a ceasefire aimed at facilitating the Doha peace talks between the government forces of the Democratic Republic of Congo (FARDC) and various armed groups, heavy fighting has persisted in South Kivu. Since June 18, 2025, clashes have intensified between M23/AFC rebels and the Wazalendo militia, particularly in Kabare, Kalehe, and Walungu territories.

On June 18, reports from several local sources indicate that heavy and light arms detonations occurred in the Walungu territory, particularly in Nyangezi and its surrounding areas. A local informant mentioned that a similar situation is unfolding in Walungu territory, with clashes reported in Lurhala and nearby regions; however, the casualty figures remain unknown.

Intense combat has been reported in the Kabare territory, particularly in Cirunga, Mumosho, and Katana. According to a local source in Cirunga who spoke to HumAngle early this morning, “the Wazalendo attempted to drive out M23/AFC rebels in Cirunga, which led to the deaths of two people.”

Local civil society sources report widespread panic in Mumosho and Katana and conflicts around Kigabi. The clashes in Mumosho extended to Nyantende, where gunshots were heard, causing panic in the Panzi area.

“I heard at least four gunshots, but they were rather far away from where I was,” said one student, adding that “we were in class and we heard gunshots and were forced to seek shelter”. The situation in Kahele remains tense. Yesterday, inhabitants reported hearing gunshots around 3:30 a.m., forcing them to stay indoors.

The recent clashes violate the ceasefire intended to support various peace talks to establish peace in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DR Congo). The DR Congo government is currently conducting peace negotiations in Doha, Qatar’s capital.

In April, representatives from the DR Congo government and the M23/AFC affirmed their commitment to an immediate cessation of hostilities and categorically rejected hate speech and intimidation. They urged all communities to adhere to these commitments.

When Los Angeles City Council members took up a plan to hike the wages of tourism workers this week, they received some carefully worded advice from city lawyers: Don’t vote on this yet.

Senior Assistant City Atty. Michael J. Dundas advised them on Wednesday — deep into their meeting — that his office had not yet conducted a final legal review of the flurry of last-minute changes they requested earlier in the day.

Dundas recommended that the council delay its vote for two days to comply with the Ralph M. Brown Act, the state’s open meeting law.

“We advise that the posted agenda for today’s meeting provides insufficient notice under the Brown Act for first consideration and adoption of an ordinance to increase the wages and health benefits for hotel and airport workers,” Dundas wrote.

The council pressed ahead anyway, voting 12-3 to increase the minimum wage of those workers to $30 per hour by 2028, despite objections from business groups, hotel owners and airport businesses.

Then, on Friday, the council conducted a do-over vote, taking up the rewritten wage measure at a special noon meeting — one called only the day before. The result was the same, with the measure passing again, 12-3.

Some in the hotel industry questioned why Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson, who runs the meetings, insisted on moving forward Wednesday, even after the lawyers’ warning.

Jackie Filla, president and chief executive of the Hotel Assn. of Los Angeles, said the decision to proceed Wednesday gave a political boost to Unite Here Local 11, which represents hotel workers. The union had already scheduled an election for Thursday for its members to vote on whether to increase their dues.

By approving the $30 per hour minimum wage on Wednesday, the council gave the union a potent selling point for the proposed dues increase, Filla said.

“It looks like it was in Unite Here’s financial interest to have that timing,” she said.

Councilmember Monica Rodriguez, who opposed the wage increases, was more blunt.

“It was clear that Marqueece intended to be as helpful as possible” to Unite Here Local 11, “even if it meant violating the Brown Act,” she said.

Harris-Dawson spokesperson Rhonda Mitchell declined to say why her boss pushed for a wage vote on Wednesday after receiving the legal advice about the Brown Act. That law requires local governments to take additional public comment if a legislative proposal has changed substantially during a meeting.

Mitchell, in a text message, said Harris-Dawson scheduled the new wage vote for Friday because of a mistake by city lawyers.

“The item was re-agendized because of a clerical error on the City Attorney’s part — and this is the correction,” she said.

Mitchell did not provide details on the error. However, the wording on the two meeting agendas is indeed different.

Wednesday’s agenda called for the council to ask city lawyers to “prepare and present” amendments to the wage laws. Friday’s agenda called for the council to “present and adopt” the proposed changes.

Maria Hernandez, a spokesperson for Unite Here Local 11, said in an email that her union does not control the City Council’s schedule. The union’s vote on higher dues involved not just its L.A. members but also thousands of workers in Orange County and Arizona, Hernandez said.

“The timing of LA City Council votes is not up to us (sadly!) — in fact we were expecting a vote more than a year ago — nor would the precise timing be salient to our members,” she said.

Hernandez said Unite Here Local 11 members voted “overwhelmingly” on Thursday to increase their dues, allowing the union to double the size of its strike fund and pay for “an army of organizers” for the next round of labor talks. She did not disclose the size of the dues increase.

Dundas’ memo, written on behalf of City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto, was submitted late in Wednesday’s deliberations, after council members requested a number of changes to the minimum wage ordinance. At one point, they took a recess so their lawyers could work on the changes.

By the time the lawyers emerged with the new language, Dundas’ memo was pinned to the public bulletin board in the council chamber, where spectators quickly snapped screenshots.