RelatedPosts Barca president Bartomeu says he won’t go to war anymore with Messi Messi scores twice in Barca friendly Messi becomes football’s second billionaire + Top 10 Lionel Messi has made sure he isn’t missing out on the latest craze to sweep football after the Barcelona forward shared his attempt at the Stay At Home challenge. With football suspended around the world owing to the coronavirus outbreak, many global stars have found they have some time on their hands. While Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain has been perfecting his dance moves with pop star girlfriend Perrie Edwards and Sergio Aguero has been making pizzas, others have found another way to cure the boredom. Plenty of footballers have been keeping their eye in at home by playing keepy-uppy, but instead of using a football, they are often using one of the symbols of this current crisis – a roll of toilet paper. The likes of Chelsea’s Mason Mount and Man United pair Bruno Fernandes and Marcus Rashford have already shared with the world their attempts. Mount’s fellow Blue Christian Pulisic did similar on Thursday, though his video didn’t exactly go to plan as he fell on his bottom while attempting an ‘around the world’ trick. Messi. as you would expect, avoided a similar fate as he showed his trademark skill and calmness throughout his effort, never once looking in bother. The Argentina international calmly kept his roll of toilet paper in the air throughout the clip shared on his Instagram account, producing deft flicks with both feet and his chest. The 32-year-old then finished with a flourish as he volleyed the loo roll out of shot – no doubt it would have found top bins had Messi been on a pitch. As is customary, the Barca attacker invited some of his peers to post their own efforts with Messi tagging club colleagues Luis Suarez, Arturo Vidal and Jordi Alba in the clip as well as fellow Argentine Aguero. Tags: Bruno FernandesLionel Messi
(REUTERS) – Seamers Trent Boult and Tim Southee struck late to leave New Zealand needing seven Zimbabwe wickets on the final day of the second Test after setting their hosts an unlikely victory target of 387 runs yesterday.Zimbabwe closed day four at the Queens Sports Club in desperate trouble on 58 for three after New Zealand had smashed a quick-fire 166 for two declared in 36 overs in their second innings.Craig Ervine and nightwatchman Donald Tiripano will resume in the morning having yet to get off the mark after Zimbabwe lost their top three before the close.Chamu Chibhabha (21) edged seamer Neil Wagner to Martin Guptill at third slip before Tino Mawoyo (35) was trapped lbw by Boult in the penultimate over.It got worse for the hosts when two balls later Southee produced a superb in-swinger to have Sikandar Raza (0) leg-before as well.Survival will be top of the agenda for Zimbabwe on an excellent batting wicket but they must find a way to counter the prodigious swing of the New Zealand seamers.Zimbabwe were 305 for six overnight in their first innings and lost their remaining four wickets for 57, including anchor Ervine for 146, his maiden Test century, as he picked out Wagner at long-off off the bowling of spinner Ish Sodhi.The latter was the pick of the visitors’ attack with 4-60 as New Zealand chose not to enforce the follow-on having been in the field for 143.4 overs.They rather pushed for quick runs in their second innings but slipped to 26 for two before captain Kane Williamson (67 not out) and Ross Taylor (68 not out) shared an unbeaten third-wicket stand of 140.The declaration came four overs after tea, leaving the tourists a minimum of 116 overs to bowl out their hosts.New Zealand lead the two-match series 1-0 after an innings and 117-run victory in the first Test.NEW ZEALAND 1st innings 582 for 4 decl. (T. Latham 136, R. Taylor 124 n.o., K. Williamson 113, M. Guptill 87, B. Watling 83 n.o.) ZIMBABWE 1st innings (overnight 305-6)T. Mawoyo b Southee 26C. Chibhabha c Williamson b Santner 60S. Raza c Williamson b Wagner 3C. Ervine c Wagner b Sodhi 146P. Masvaure b Santner 2S. Williams lbw b Sodhi 16P. Moor c Guptill b Sodhi 71G. Cremer lbw b Boult 8D. Tiripano lbw b Wagner 3J. Nyumbu c Santner b Sodhi 8M. Chinouya not out 0Extras: (b-12, lb-6, nb-1) 19Total: (all out, 143.4 overs) 362Fall of wickets: 1-65 T, 2-83, 3-107, 4-115, 5-147, 6-295, 7-319, 8-327, 9-352.Bowling: T. Southee 28-14-73-1, T. Boult 27-13-45-1, M. Santner 35-8-105-2, N. Wagner 31-8-61-2 (nb-1), I. Sodhi 21.4-9-60-4, M. Guptill 1-1-0-0.NEW ZEALAND 2nd inningsM. Guptill c Nyumbu b Chinouya 13T. Latham c Moor b Tiripano 11K. Williamson not out 68R. Taylor not out 67Extras: (lb-4, w-3) 7Total: (for 2 wickets declared, 36 overs) 166Fall of wickets: 1-24 T. Latham, 2-26 M. Guptill.Bowling: M. Chinouya 9-2-45-1 (w-2), D. Tiripano 6-1-14-1 (w-1), C. Chibhabha 3-0–22-0, G. Cremer 11-0-59-0, J. Nyumbu 7-0-22-0ZIMBABWE 2nd innings (Target: 387 runs)T. Mawoyo lbw b Boult 35C. Chibhabha c Guptill b Wagner 21S. Raza lbw b Southee 0D. Tiripano not out 0Extras: (b-1, lb-1) 2Total: (for 3 wickets, 25.2 overs) 58Fall of wickets: 1-45, 2-58, 3-58.Bowling: T. Southee 6.2-3-18-1, T. Boult 6-2-11-1, N. Wagner 8-3-21-1, M. Santner 5-2-6-0.
Pep Guardiola’s side are unbeaten in five top flight matches – winning their last four.Tonight in the Champions league round of 16 second leg Barcelona welcome Paris saint Germain trailing 4-0 from the first leg while Borussia Dortmund host Benfica with the Portuguese side leading 1-0 from the first leg.Both of those matches kick off at 7.45. The boss has also expressed concern about the playing surface for the match in Russia.Manchester City can go second with a win at home to Stoke tonight.Kick off at the Etihad is at 8.
President Trump continues to threaten Twitter after the platform fact-checked some of his tweets.So far, it is not clear how Twitter, a private company with 330 million accounts, plans to police its entire platform for accuracy rather than just the president.And is the fact-checking legal? Exactly who is making the “true” or “false” decisions? What are his or her biases?The American Bar Association recognizes that social media is a hot legal battle ground.Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s 2017 opinion on a First Amendment case, called the cyber age a revolution of historic proportions, noting that “we cannot appreciate yet its full dimensions and vast potential to alter how we think, express ourselves, and define who we want to be.”Kennedy said cyberspace, and social media in particular, was among the “most important places … for the exchange of views.” He compared the internet to a public forum, akin to a public street or park. Although Justice Samuel A. Alito concurred in the opinion, he also chastised Kennedy for his “undisciplined dicta” and “unnecessary rhetoric.”This hot battleground raises serious concerns about the future of free speech, including attempts at censorship by government actors critical of comments on social media, the shifting standards of private platforms to censor online expression and the rise of hate and extremist speech in the digital world.One issue involves government officials blocking or removing critical comments online. In a sense, this violates the core First Amendment principle that individuals have the right to criticize government officials. In the landmark free-press/libel decision New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), Justice William Brennan wrote that there is a “profound national commitment that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.”More recently, the case of Knight First Amendment Institute for Columbia University v. Trump presents these issues in pristine form. President Donald Trump and a staffer named Donald Scavino were accused of violating the First Amendment by blocking several people from Trump’s engine of self-expression, his personal Twitter account, @realDonaldTrump. The plaintiffs’ tweets were not vulgar, but they criticized the president and his policies. For example, one of the plaintiffs was blocked after tweeting: “To be fair, you didn’t win the WH: Russia won it for you.”In May 2018, Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that the president violated the blocked users’ First Amendment rights by engaging in impermissible viewpoint discrimination. She reasoned that while Twitter is a private company, Trump and his staffer exercised government control over the content of the tweets by blocking users who criticized the president in the interactive space on Twitter. The judge determined that this interactive space was a designated public forum and that the president could not discriminate against speakers because of their viewpoints.The government appealed the decision to the New York City-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In its appellate brief, the government argues that the district court decision is “fundamentally misconceived” in part because “the @realDonaldTrump account belongs to Donald Trump in his personal capacity and is subject to his personal control, not the control of the government.” In other words, the government contends that Trump’s Twitter feed is not the speech of the government and thus not subject to First Amendment dictates.On the other hand, the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia contends that the interactive space on Twitter, where individuals can tweet responses to the president’s expression, represent a designated public forum—a space the government has intentionally opened up for the expression of views. The Knight Institute contends that Trump and Scavino violated the most fundamental of all free-speech principles: that the government cannot engage in viewpoint discrimination of private speakers.“The case is a game-changer for both free speech and the right to petition the government,” says Clay Calvert, director of the Marion B. Brechner First Amendment Project in the University of Florida College of Journalism and Communications. “The district court’s ruling highlights not only the importance of online social media platforms’ forums for interacting with government officials, but also confirms that when government officials use nongovernment entities like Twitter to comment on policy and personnel matters, the First Amendment comes into play.”“I think it is potentially very important,” agrees constitutional law expert Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California at Berkeley School of Law and a contributor to the ABA Journal. “It is not just about Trump, but ultimately about government officials at all levels to exclude those who disagree with them from important media of communications.”The decision is important also because there are countless disputes involving state and local government officials who have blocked users or removed comments that are critical of them. In April 2018, Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan agreed to a settlement with the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland in a federal lawsuit over the blocking of those who criticized him from his Facebook page.Under the settlement, the government admitted no liability but did agree to a new social media policy and the creation of a new “Constituent Message Page” that allows individuals to post their political expression, even if critical.The blocking of critical speakers from Twitter feeds or comment pages on government pages is far from the only First Amendment issue on social media. The internet has led to a cottage industry of defamation lawsuits arising from intemperate online expression. For example, a federal district court in California recently reasoned that the president did not defame Stormy Daniels, an adult film actress who claimed she engaged in an intimate relationship with Trump in 2006. Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford, says that in 2011 she faced threats from an unknown man who said she must leave Trump alone. Daniels worked with a sketch artist to produce a picture of the man after Trump was elected president. Trump tweeted: “A sketch years later about a nonexistent man. A total con job, playing the Fake News Media for Fools (but they know)!” Daniels sued the president for defaming her, but the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in Clifford v. Trump (2018) dismissed the suit, explaining that Trump had engaged in protected rhetorical hyperbole rather than protected speech.Private censorshipMuch of the censorship on social media does not emanate directly from the government. Often, the censorship comes from social media companies that police content pursuant to their own terms-of-service agreements. Outcries of political censorship abound. Recent controversies include radio show provocateur Alex Jones being removed from Facebook, YouTube and Apple for engaging in hateful speech; Facebook at least temporarily removing a newspaper’s online postings of sections of the Declaration of Independence; and uneven or inconsistent application of hate speech removal policies.President Trump entered the arena—via Twitter as he usually does—accusing Google of censoring more conservative speech. He tweeted: “Google & others are suppressing voices of Conservatives and hiding information and news that is good. They are controlling what we can & cannot see. This is a very serious situation-will be addressed!”If such private entities are not subject to First Amendment constraints, what should be the obligation of social media platforms when it comes to regulating private expression, particularly expression that advocates hate or includes calls for violence?These issues are becoming more important, particularly as there is an increase in hate and extremist speech on the internet.“While I don’t believe any hard numbers exist, with an ever-increasing increase of available online platforms, it seems very likely that hate speech has risen significantly over the past decade,” says Shannon Martinez, program manager for Free Radicals Project, a group that provides support for those seeking to leave hate groups. “The internet is the main recruiting ground for most of today’s violence and hate-based groups.”Under the First Amendment, hate speech is a form of protected speech unless it crosses the line into narrow unprotected categories of speech, such as true threats, incitement to imminent lawless action, or fighting words. Controversy abounds over what actually constitutes hate speech. In her recent book, Hate: Why We Should Resist It with Free Speech, Not Censorship, Nadine Strossen writes that hate speech “has no single legal definition, and in our popular discourse it has been used loosely to demonize a wide array of disfavored views.”But this raises the question of whether such private entities will do more to respect freedom of expression and regulate the type of speech that perhaps does need to be removed. “There is no one-size-fits-all answer to this question because these platforms operate differently and with different commitments to a transparent process for users,” says Suzanne Nossel, CEO of PEN America, a human rights and First Amendment advocacy organization for writers. “But we are concerned about the discretion that exists at the hands of these platforms, and we advocate for greater transparency for the public to understand how Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc., make decisions that affect their individual online expression.”What is clear is that Kennedy was correct when he talked about the importance of the cyber age on free expression. “The online world and social media have drastically changed the way we engage with each other and how we consume information,” Nossel says. “The law will necessarily begin setting boundaries to define acceptable forms of online expression, and it’s already doing that to some degree.”
ATLANTA — Paul Millsap answered all those questions about his shoulder. Al Horford didn’t let a dislocated finger slow him down.As for the Hawks, they’ve yet to show the form that carried them to the top of the Eastern Conference.No. 1-seeded Atlanta again survived a tougher-than-expected test from the Brooklyn Nets, holding on for a 96-91 victory and a 2-0 lead in their playoff series April 22.“We’re kind of playing on the edge right now,” Horford said.Millsap, who missed five games near the end of the season with a sprained right shoulder, ditched a pad that he felt restricted his shooting motion. He responded by hitting 7-of-11 shots and finished with 19 points.Horford also looked fine, scoring 14 points while leading the Hawks with 13 rebounds and seven assists. He did it all with his right hand taped, after dislocating his pinky finger in Game 1.“Once the game started, I was good,” Horford said.Kyle Korver chipped in with 17 points, knocking down three shots beyond the arc. But overall, the Hawks made only 39 percent from the field.“We feel fortunate that we made just enough plays, just enough stops,” said Atlanta’s Mike Budenholzer, recognized before the game for winning the NBA Coach of the Year award.Squandering an early 12-point lead, the Hawks spent much of the game struggling to put away the No. 8 seed.It went down to the wire. Deron Williams missed an open 15-foot jumper that would’ve tied it with about 10 seconds to go. Korver rebounded, was fouled and made two free throws to clinch Atlanta’s win.The best-of-seven series shifts to Brooklyn for the next two contests. Game 3 is April 25.Jarrett Jack led the Nets with 23 points off the bench, and Brook Lopez had 20. “All is not lost,” Jack said. “Our confidence is high.”On a night when the Hawks announced an agreement to sell the team to a group led by billionaire businessman Antony Ressler for $850 million, Atlanta got off to another quick start in a repeat of Game 1. Horford’s jumper made it 27-15 late in the first quarter.The Nets fought back, just as they did in the opener won by the Hawks 99-92. Brooklyn ripped off 12 straight points in the second period to take its first lead.The Hawks hardly looked like a team that set a franchise record with 60 wins and finished 22 games ahead of Brooklyn in the East. They missed nine straight shots and turned it over three times before Millsap’s layup broke the skid.Even after the Hawks pushed back out to an 11-point lead in the final quarter, Brooklyn wouldn’t go away. Jack hit another 3 from the corner to bring the Nets to 90-89.After DeMarre Carroll scored his only basket of the night off a slick pass from Millsap, Alan Anderson made a reverse layup off the baseline to again make it a one-point game.Millsap was fouled but made only one of two free throws, giving the Nets a chance to tie it or grab the lead with a 3-pointer.They couldn’t have asked for a better look. Williams faked a 3 from the corner, sending Kent Bazemore flying by, and stepped up for a shot with no one around. It spun out and was snatched by Korver.Two free throws later, the Hawks finally prevailed. “This ain’t no pushover team,” Millsap said of the Nets. “There’s not going to be games where we can just run over them.”(PAUL NEWBERRY, AP Sports Writer)TweetPinShare0 Shares