Immediate Appellate Review of Prior Restraint in Cincinnati Policeman Libel Suit?

As you may recall from an earlier post, a Cincinnati policeman is suing for libel over a post that accused him “of possibly being associated with white supremacy or of being racist after spotting a video and picture of him allegedly flashing the ‘ok’ sign at a City Council meeting … held to address concerns by those in the Black Lives Matter Movement.” And the judge responded by issuing a preliminary injunction ordering the defendants not to “publiciz[e], through social media or other channels, Plaintiff’s personal identifying information.” The order doesn’t define “personal identifying information,” but the only Ohio statute that does define term (the identity fraud statute) defines it to include a person’s “name.”

Thus, the bloggers are banned from mentioning the police officer at all. They aren’t just banned from libeling him; even a post conveying accurate information, or expressing an opinion, about the police officer is forbidden, if it mentions the officer’s name. The defendants have appealed the order, and right now the question before the Ohio Court of Appeals is whether this order should indeed be immediately appealable. (You can read the officer’s motion to dismiss the appeal, and the defendants’ response.)

My invaluable pro bono local counsel Jeffrey M. Nye (Stagnaro, Saba & Patterson) has just filed an amicus brief urging immediate review, on behalf of several current and former Ohio First Amendment professors—Jonathan L. Entin, Andrew Geronimo & Raymond Ku (Case Western), David Forte, Stephen Lazarus & Kevin O’Neill (Cleveland-Marshall), and Margaret Tarkington (currently Indiana, but formerly Cincinnati)—as well as Aaron Caplan (Loyola) and me, as well as the National Writers Union, the Writers Guild of America (East), and the Society of Professional Journalists. Here’s the substance of our argument:

Introduction

The court below forbade Ms. Niesen and Ms. White from mentioning the name of a public official (police officer “M.R.”) in any forum or medium. This was a decision made by one judge, without the opportunity for a full trial or even comprehensive briefing, less than 48 hours after the complaint was filed. The order is not limited to forbidding libelous speech, speech that constitutes true threats, or speech that falls into any other First Amendment exception.

It prohibits speech that is fully protected by the First Amendment and by Art. I, § 11 of the Ohio Constitution. It has no expiration date. The order is a prior restraint of the appellants’ speech.

It is conceivable, of course, that extraordinary circumstances can justify even such a prior restraint. (Amici doubt this is so in this case, but that is a matter to be dealt with in the merits briefing.) Yet if the prior restraint ultimately can stand, it cannot do so based on the hurried decision of one trial court judge. Rather, “a preliminary injunction that constitutes a prior restraint on speech requires immediate appellate review.” Puruczky v. Corsi, 2018-Ohio-1335, 110 N.E.3d 73, ¶15 (internal quotation marks omitted). That principle fully applies here.

This is not just a matter of good policy—it is a constitutional requirement. “A prior restraint … has an immediate and irreversible sanction” that is unlike any other remedy a court may impose, including “a judgment in a defamation case” or even “[a] criminal penalty,” because all other sanctions are “subject to the whole panoply of protections afforded by deferring the impact of the judgment until all avenues of appellate review have been exhausted. Only after judgment has become final, correct or otherwise, does the law’s sanction become fully operative” for other remedies. Nebraska Press Ass’n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 559 (1976).

That “panoply of protections” does not exist for a prior restraint, which is why “prior restraints on speech and publication are the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights.” Id.Prior restraints “fall on speech with a brutality and finality all their own.” Id. at 609 (Brennan, J., concurring in reversal of prior restraint).

More broadly, every day that a prior restraint remains in place is a First Amendment violation, and “[t]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976). And it is not an injury merely to the enjoined parties: “Indeed, it is the hypothesis of the First Amendment that injury is inflicted on our society when we stifle the immediacy of speech.” Nebraska Press Ass’n, 427 U.S. at 609 (Brennan, J., concurring) (emphasis added). An overbroad anti-libel injunction has “the potential to harm nonparties to the litigation because enjoining speech harms listeners as well as speakers.” McCarthy v. Fuller, 810 F.3d 456, 461 (7th Cir. 2015).

This injury to society and the parties is not remediable by vacatur or reversal of a prior restraint at a distant future date after final judgment, especially where (as here) the prior restraint relates to a public official and his conduct in official and court proceedings. The parties and the public have a right to speak contemporaneously, not merely retrospectively, about both public officials and court proceedings. See Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 268 (1941) (“[P]ublic interest is much more likely to be kindled by a controversial event of the day than by a generalization, however penetrating, of the historian or scientist.”); Doe v. Pub. Citizen, 749 F.3d 246, 272 (4th Cir. 2014) (acknowledging the harms of “delayed disclosure” with respect to court proceedings).

Immediate appellate review is necessary to make sure that the injunction does not cause such a loss of First Amendment freedoms. And if Nazis who want to march in a neighborhood populated with thousands of Holocaust survivors are entitled to such immediate appellate review of an injunction against their speech, see Nat’l Socialist Party of Am. v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43, 43–44 (1977); see also Collin v. Smith, 578 F.2d 1197, 1199 (7th Cir. 1978), then citizens criticizing a police officer must be entitled to the same.

Argument

[I.] Prior restraints are immediately appealable.

“If a State seeks to impose a restraint” by way of an injunction against speech, “it must provide strict procedural safeguards, including immediate appellate review.” Nat’l Socialist Party, 432 U.S. at 44 (citing Nebraska Press Ass’n v. Stuart, 423 U.S. 1319, 1327 (1975) (Blackmun, J., in chambers)). This principle has been followed in Ohio by Puruczky, supra, as well as Int’l Diamond Exch. Jewelers, Inc. v. U.S. Diamond & Gold Jewelers, Inc., 70 Ohio App. 3d 667, 671, 591 N.E.2d 881, 884 (2d Dist. 1991), and Connor Group v. Raney, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 26653, 2016-Ohio-2959, 2016 WL 2841190, ¶1. Indeed, Puruczky and Connor Group involved injunctions entered in response to libel lawsuits.

And this requirement of immediate appellate review makes sense, because “‘[w]here …  a direct prior restraint is imposed upon the reporting of news by the media, each passing day may constitute a separate and cognizable infringement of the First Amendment.'” CBS, Inc. v. Davis, 510 U.S. 1315, 1317 (1994) (Blackmun, J., in chambers) (citation omitted); Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 126 (2d Cir. 2006) (endorsing this principle as requiring “expeditious[]” decisionmaking as to restraints on First Amendment rights, there the right of access to court records); Doe v. Pub. Citizen, 749 F.3d 246, 272–73 (4th Cir. 2014) (same); Grove Fresh Distributors, Inc. v. Everfresh Juice Co., 24 F.3d 893, 897 (7th Cir. 1994) (same), superseded on other grounds, as stated in Bond v. Utreras, 585 F.3d 1061, 1068 n.4 (7th Cir. 2009).

And of course this principle applies beyond the mainstream media, and covers social media users as well. Art. I, § 11 of the Ohio Constitution “guarantees to ‘[e]very citizen’ the right to publish freely his or her sentiments on all subjects, regardless of that citizen’s association or nonassociation with the press.” Wampler v. Higgins, 93 Ohio St. 3d 111, 121 (2001). “We have consistently rejected the proposition that the institutional press has any constitutional privilege beyond that of other speakers.” Citizens United v. United States, 558 U.S. 310, 352 (2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). “The liberty of the press is not confined to newspapers and periodicals. It necessarily embraces pamphlets and leaflets… . The press in its historic connotation comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion.” Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 452 (1938); see also Chevaldina v. R.K./FL Mgmt., Inc., 133 So. 3d 1086, 1092 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014) (“Angry social media postings are now common… . But analytically, and legally, these rants are essentially the electronic successors of the pre-blog, solo complainant holding a poster on a public sidewalk,” and are just as fully protected by the First Amendment).

[II.] The order in this case is a prior restraint.

“The term ‘prior restraint’ is used to describe administrative and judicial orders forbidding certain communications when issued in advance of the time that such communications are to occur.” Bey v. Rasawehr, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-3301, ¶25 (some quotation marks omitted). “Temporary restraining orders and permanent injunctions—i.e., court orders that actually forbid speech activities—are classic examples of prior restraints.” Id. (quotation marks omitted).

The order in this case does indeed forbid certain future “speech activities”: all posts “publicizing” “Plaintiff’s personal identifying information,” Order at 1, which presumably includes plaintiff’s name. (The only Ohio statute that defines the term “personal identifying information,” Ohio Rev. Code § 2913.49(A), defines it to include a person’s “name.”)

And the order restrains speech in a content-based way. “It is inescapable that a regulation of speech ‘about’ a specific person … is a regulation of the content of that speech and must therefore be analyzed as a content-based regulation.” Bey, supra, 2020-Ohio-3301, ¶33.

The prior restraint here is by no means limited to libelous speech, since it bars all mentions of plaintiff’s name, libelous or not. Nor is it limited to true threats of harm, or to speech that falls within the narrow exception for intentional incitement of imminent and likely criminal conduct, see Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969).

Moreover, the restraint was issued before any determination that the speech fits within a First Amendment exception. Yet “before a court may enjoin the future publication of allegedly defamatory statements based on their content, there must first be a judicial determination that the subject statements were in fact defamatory.” Bey, supra, 2020-Ohio-3301, at ¶44 (citing O’Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, Inc., 42 Ohio St.2d 242, 246, 327 N.E.2d 753 (1975)). Likewise, a court may enjoin speech that falls within some other exception only after “there has been” a “judicial determination that future postings” by the plaintiffs will fit within that exception (in Bey, this was the “integral means to criminal conduct” exception). Id. at ¶¶45, 47.

M.R. thus errs in arguing that “[t]his case is nothing like National Social[ist] Party of Am. v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977) because false light and defamatory statements are not entitled to protection under the First Amendment,” Mot. to Dismiss Appeal 4-5. The order here is not limited to banning “false light and defamatory statements.” The order is not founded on “a judicial determination that the subject statements were in fact defamatory,” Bey, supra, 2020-Ohio-3301, at ¶44. And the whole point of prompt appellate review in such cases is precisely to determine whether the speech is indeed constitutionally restrainable (for instance, on the theory that it is defamatory); indeed, Puruczky,  supra, 2018-Ohio-1335, and Connor Group, supra, 2016-Ohio-2959—which found a right to prompt appellate review of preliminary injunctions (based on Nat’l Socialist Party)—were themselves libel cases.

Conclusion

Prior restraints on speech are rarely constitutional; and to make sure that unconstitutional prior restraints suppress speech for as short a time as possible, both the U.S. Supreme Court and Ohio courts have required that such restraints be subject to immediate appellate review. The injunction in this case is a prior restraint, and thus subject to immediate appellate review; indeed, it is a content-based prior restraint, and one that is not limited to libelous speech or to speech that falls within a First Amendment exception. This appeal should therefore not be dismissed.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3aQedto
via IFTTT

Immediate Appellate Review of Prior Restraint in Cincinnati Policeman Libel Suit?

As you may recall from an earlier post, a Cincinnati policeman is suing for libel over a post that accused him “of possibly being associated with white supremacy or of being racist after spotting a video and picture of him allegedly flashing the ‘ok’ sign at a City Council meeting … held to address concerns by those in the Black Lives Matter Movement.” And the judge responded by issuing a preliminary injunction ordering the defendants not to “publiciz[e], through social media or other channels, Plaintiff’s personal identifying information.” The order doesn’t define “personal identifying information,” but the only Ohio statute that does define term (the identity fraud statute) defines it to include a person’s “name.”

Thus, the bloggers are banned from mentioning the police officer at all. They aren’t just banned from libeling him; even a post conveying accurate information, or expressing an opinion, about the police officer is forbidden, if it mentions the officer’s name. The defendants have appealed the order, and right now the question before the Ohio Court of Appeals is whether this order should indeed be immediately appealable. (You can read the officer’s motion to dismiss the appeal, and the defendants’ response.)

My invaluable pro bono local counsel Jeffrey M. Nye (Stagnaro, Saba & Patterson) has just filed an amicus brief urging immediate review, on behalf of several current and former Ohio First Amendment professors—Jonathan L. Entin, Andrew Geronimo & Raymond Ku (Case Western), David Forte, Stephen Lazarus & Kevin O’Neill (Cleveland-Marshall), and Margaret Tarkington (currently Indiana, but formerly Cincinnati)—as well as Aaron Caplan (Loyola) and me, as well as the National Writers Union, the Writers Guild of America (East), and the Society of Professional Journalists. Here’s the substance of our argument:

Introduction

The court below forbade Ms. Niesen and Ms. White from mentioning the name of a public official (police officer “M.R.”) in any forum or medium. This was a decision made by one judge, without the opportunity for a full trial or even comprehensive briefing, less than 48 hours after the complaint was filed. The order is not limited to forbidding libelous speech, speech that constitutes true threats, or speech that falls into any other First Amendment exception.

It prohibits speech that is fully protected by the First Amendment and by Art. I, § 11 of the Ohio Constitution. It has no expiration date. The order is a prior restraint of the appellants’ speech.

It is conceivable, of course, that extraordinary circumstances can justify even such a prior restraint. (Amici doubt this is so in this case, but that is a matter to be dealt with in the merits briefing.) Yet if the prior restraint ultimately can stand, it cannot do so based on the hurried decision of one trial court judge. Rather, “a preliminary injunction that constitutes a prior restraint on speech requires immediate appellate review.” Puruczky v. Corsi, 2018-Ohio-1335, 110 N.E.3d 73, ¶15 (internal quotation marks omitted). That principle fully applies here.

This is not just a matter of good policy—it is a constitutional requirement. “A prior restraint … has an immediate and irreversible sanction” that is unlike any other remedy a court may impose, including “a judgment in a defamation case” or even “[a] criminal penalty,” because all other sanctions are “subject to the whole panoply of protections afforded by deferring the impact of the judgment until all avenues of appellate review have been exhausted. Only after judgment has become final, correct or otherwise, does the law’s sanction become fully operative” for other remedies. Nebraska Press Ass’n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 559 (1976).

That “panoply of protections” does not exist for a prior restraint, which is why “prior restraints on speech and publication are the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights.” Id.Prior restraints “fall on speech with a brutality and finality all their own.” Id. at 609 (Brennan, J., concurring in reversal of prior restraint).

More broadly, every day that a prior restraint remains in place is a First Amendment violation, and “[t]he loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976). And it is not an injury merely to the enjoined parties: “Indeed, it is the hypothesis of the First Amendment that injury is inflicted on our society when we stifle the immediacy of speech.” Nebraska Press Ass’n, 427 U.S. at 609 (Brennan, J., concurring) (emphasis added). An overbroad anti-libel injunction has “the potential to harm nonparties to the litigation because enjoining speech harms listeners as well as speakers.” McCarthy v. Fuller, 810 F.3d 456, 461 (7th Cir. 2015).

This injury to society and the parties is not remediable by vacatur or reversal of a prior restraint at a distant future date after final judgment, especially where (as here) the prior restraint relates to a public official and his conduct in official and court proceedings. The parties and the public have a right to speak contemporaneously, not merely retrospectively, about both public officials and court proceedings. See Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 268 (1941) (“[P]ublic interest is much more likely to be kindled by a controversial event of the day than by a generalization, however penetrating, of the historian or scientist.”); Doe v. Pub. Citizen, 749 F.3d 246, 272 (4th Cir. 2014) (acknowledging the harms of “delayed disclosure” with respect to court proceedings).

Immediate appellate review is necessary to make sure that the injunction does not cause such a loss of First Amendment freedoms. And if Nazis who want to march in a neighborhood populated with thousands of Holocaust survivors are entitled to such immediate appellate review of an injunction against their speech, see Nat’l Socialist Party of Am. v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43, 43–44 (1977); see also Collin v. Smith, 578 F.2d 1197, 1199 (7th Cir. 1978), then citizens criticizing a police officer must be entitled to the same.

Argument

[I.] Prior restraints are immediately appealable.

“If a State seeks to impose a restraint” by way of an injunction against speech, “it must provide strict procedural safeguards, including immediate appellate review.” Nat’l Socialist Party, 432 U.S. at 44 (citing Nebraska Press Ass’n v. Stuart, 423 U.S. 1319, 1327 (1975) (Blackmun, J., in chambers)). This principle has been followed in Ohio by Puruczky, supra, as well as Int’l Diamond Exch. Jewelers, Inc. v. U.S. Diamond & Gold Jewelers, Inc., 70 Ohio App. 3d 667, 671, 591 N.E.2d 881, 884 (2d Dist. 1991), and Connor Group v. Raney, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 26653, 2016-Ohio-2959, 2016 WL 2841190, ¶1. Indeed, Puruczky and Connor Group involved injunctions entered in response to libel lawsuits.

And this requirement of immediate appellate review makes sense, because “‘[w]here …  a direct prior restraint is imposed upon the reporting of news by the media, each passing day may constitute a separate and cognizable infringement of the First Amendment.'” CBS, Inc. v. Davis, 510 U.S. 1315, 1317 (1994) (Blackmun, J., in chambers) (citation omitted); Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 126 (2d Cir. 2006) (endorsing this principle as requiring “expeditious[]” decisionmaking as to restraints on First Amendment rights, there the right of access to court records); Doe v. Pub. Citizen, 749 F.3d 246, 272–73 (4th Cir. 2014) (same); Grove Fresh Distributors, Inc. v. Everfresh Juice Co., 24 F.3d 893, 897 (7th Cir. 1994) (same), superseded on other grounds, as stated in Bond v. Utreras, 585 F.3d 1061, 1068 n.4 (7th Cir. 2009).

And of course this principle applies beyond the mainstream media, and covers social media users as well. Art. I, § 11 of the Ohio Constitution “guarantees to ‘[e]very citizen’ the right to publish freely his or her sentiments on all subjects, regardless of that citizen’s association or nonassociation with the press.” Wampler v. Higgins, 93 Ohio St. 3d 111, 121 (2001). “We have consistently rejected the proposition that the institutional press has any constitutional privilege beyond that of other speakers.” Citizens United v. United States, 558 U.S. 310, 352 (2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). “The liberty of the press is not confined to newspapers and periodicals. It necessarily embraces pamphlets and leaflets… . The press in its historic connotation comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion.” Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 452 (1938); see also Chevaldina v. R.K./FL Mgmt., Inc., 133 So. 3d 1086, 1092 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014) (“Angry social media postings are now common… . But analytically, and legally, these rants are essentially the electronic successors of the pre-blog, solo complainant holding a poster on a public sidewalk,” and are just as fully protected by the First Amendment).

[II.] The order in this case is a prior restraint.

“The term ‘prior restraint’ is used to describe administrative and judicial orders forbidding certain communications when issued in advance of the time that such communications are to occur.” Bey v. Rasawehr, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-3301, ¶25 (some quotation marks omitted). “Temporary restraining orders and permanent injunctions—i.e., court orders that actually forbid speech activities—are classic examples of prior restraints.” Id. (quotation marks omitted).

The order in this case does indeed forbid certain future “speech activities”: all posts “publicizing” “Plaintiff’s personal identifying information,” Order at 1, which presumably includes plaintiff’s name. (The only Ohio statute that defines the term “personal identifying information,” Ohio Rev. Code § 2913.49(A), defines it to include a person’s “name.”)

And the order restrains speech in a content-based way. “It is inescapable that a regulation of speech ‘about’ a specific person … is a regulation of the content of that speech and must therefore be analyzed as a content-based regulation.” Bey, supra, 2020-Ohio-3301, ¶33.

The prior restraint here is by no means limited to libelous speech, since it bars all mentions of plaintiff’s name, libelous or not. Nor is it limited to true threats of harm, or to speech that falls within the narrow exception for intentional incitement of imminent and likely criminal conduct, see Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969).

Moreover, the restraint was issued before any determination that the speech fits within a First Amendment exception. Yet “before a court may enjoin the future publication of allegedly defamatory statements based on their content, there must first be a judicial determination that the subject statements were in fact defamatory.” Bey, supra, 2020-Ohio-3301, at ¶44 (citing O’Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, Inc., 42 Ohio St.2d 242, 246, 327 N.E.2d 753 (1975)). Likewise, a court may enjoin speech that falls within some other exception only after “there has been” a “judicial determination that future postings” by the plaintiffs will fit within that exception (in Bey, this was the “integral means to criminal conduct” exception). Id. at ¶¶45, 47.

M.R. thus errs in arguing that “[t]his case is nothing like National Social[ist] Party of Am. v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977) because false light and defamatory statements are not entitled to protection under the First Amendment,” Mot. to Dismiss Appeal 4-5. The order here is not limited to banning “false light and defamatory statements.” The order is not founded on “a judicial determination that the subject statements were in fact defamatory,” Bey, supra, 2020-Ohio-3301, at ¶44. And the whole point of prompt appellate review in such cases is precisely to determine whether the speech is indeed constitutionally restrainable (for instance, on the theory that it is defamatory); indeed, Puruczky,  supra, 2018-Ohio-1335, and Connor Group, supra, 2016-Ohio-2959—which found a right to prompt appellate review of preliminary injunctions (based on Nat’l Socialist Party)—were themselves libel cases.

Conclusion

Prior restraints on speech are rarely constitutional; and to make sure that unconstitutional prior restraints suppress speech for as short a time as possible, both the U.S. Supreme Court and Ohio courts have required that such restraints be subject to immediate appellate review. The injunction in this case is a prior restraint, and thus subject to immediate appellate review; indeed, it is a content-based prior restraint, and one that is not limited to libelous speech or to speech that falls within a First Amendment exception. This appeal should therefore not be dismissed.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3aQedto
via IFTTT

“This Isn’t Entirely Healthy…”

“This Isn’t Entirely Healthy…”

Tyler Durden

Mon, 08/24/2020 – 08:30

Authored by Richard Breslow via Bloomberg,

The annual Federal Reserve economic gathering is this week. No fly fishing, just login credentials, this year. We’ve become accustomed to expect this event to be an enormously seminal event where something will be told to us to that will reveal all we need to know.

This year’s nominal title is “Navigating the Decade Ahead: Implications for Monetary Policy.”

I have to admit, that leaves me cold and, somewhat worryingly, uninterested. To think they know anything about the decade ahead, let alone intend to act upon any conclusions based on the forecasts, seems devoid of any ideas to do something about the here and now.

Rude comment? I’d love to be proved wrong.

Frankly, it would be more believable for the headline subject to be “QE Forever: Is There Any Way Out of the Rabbit Hole?” Whether you are thinking about the decade ahead or strictly focused on the immediate future, has a lot to do which branch of the K-Shaped recovery you have managed to end up on. Doesn’t “V” seem like a happy memory? On the face of it, things are flying high.

A chart of the S&P 500 Index looks absolutely sanguine and portends clear sailing. Not so much if you break it up into its component parts.

If there is anything different this time, it’s that the upper stroke of the K people are well aware this isn’t entirely healthy.

Story after story, still includes that the coronavirus is everything. For the economy and society. And whether we can slink back into the office, watch a movie in a mostly empty theater or stay buttoned-up at home that’s true. What we need to avoid is that the statement doesn’t merely become a comment on sector rotation than our actual future. Numbers get a little better and we rush into value. Slip backward and its grab more mega-tech. The powers that be, not really meeting this week, need to accept that the way forward for the real economy has little to do with forward guidance or yield-curve control. And trust me when I tell you, no one thinks they are itching to raise rates. So being told they are willing to let the economy run “hot” when inflation picks up isn’t even useful information for short-term interest rate traders.

Meanwhile, the equity markets continue to bubble up. A sea of green across every part of the world. I keep being told it will end in tears. That it isn’t as happy as it looks. Does it really matter? The winners smile and the losers, or those on the outside looking in, say deal.

There is renewed technical bullishness for lower bond yields, the dollar bears are convinced any correction is just that, and off we go. The equity markets will continue higher until they don’t. Discussing the world’s travails is an interesting pastime, little more.

For those who wish to wish to bemoan lack of breadth, take a deep breath — one day all of your bearish inclinations will no doubt be rewarded. But wait for the central banks to tell you when that will be.

I do confess that the utter lack of momentum in emerging market currencies is both curious, and on some level, worrying. It’s definitely worth watching. Not that they have done anything particularly wrong at all as an asset class. They just seem to be stalling at an ambiguous price point. And, at least, they are fun to keep tabs on. The world needs these economies to, eventually, kick-in to higher gear. Wouldn’t that be something?

Lastly, gold, the active contract has definitely had its gyrations of late. Plenty of traders are willing to admit it hasn’t really been behaving all that well. But, I’ll have to get back to you when I find one that doesn’t remain a committed bull.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3aQhjxw Tyler Durden

New Jersey Rep Slams Dems’ USPS Bailout Bill For “Making It Easier To Sue The Post Office”

New Jersey Rep Slams Dems’ USPS Bailout Bill For “Making It Easier To Sue The Post Office”

Tyler Durden

Mon, 08/24/2020 – 08:15

The House Democrats’ $25 billion bill funding for the USPS, passed after Pelosi “bravely” defied convention and called lawmakers in on a Saturday so that 26 Republicans could join all the Dems present in passing a (doomed) $25 billion aid package for the US Post Office that would also undo several ‘streamlining’ cuts.

Ahead of the House vote on Saturday, Rep. Jeff Van Drew, who famously switched parties at the end of 2019, said he supports the Postal Service, but is suspicious of certain provisions of the Democratic bill during an appearance on “Fox & Friends”.

Rep. Van Drew

As the conversation turned to the Democrats’ $25 billion aid package for USPS, Van Drew pointed out an interesting provision of the USPS law that hasn’t been widely reported: One part of the law, he explained, makes it easier for people to sue the post office.

This could lead to a “lot more liability issues….[and] a lot more costs.”

“They suddenly put in there that now you can sue the post office,” Van Drew said on “Fox & Friends Weekend.” “We’re going to have a lot more liability issues, a lot more costs, certainly more money for, I guess, attorneys, but a whole lot less money for the taxpayers.

“Who told them to do that? Who wants that? Why are we doing that? I don’t understand what we’re actually doing sometimes rather than getting good work … accomplished for the people of the United States of America. It’s just folks arguing with each other, and Democrats not wanting to cooperate, ever.”

In a letter from the White House warning of an impending veto should it somehow pass the Senate (it probably won’t), the administration said the bill “would arbitrarily give USPS $25 billion in “emergency” taxpayer funding, without linking that funding to either the COVID-19 pandemic or the upcoming election.”

Watch below:

House Democrats already tried to tie USPS funding to another pandemic relief bill that has by all accounts died on the vine. Even without the money, Postmaster General has reversed some cuts to avoid “even the appearance” of interference.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/31moxWQ Tyler Durden

Futures Soars Above 3,400 To All Time High On Covid Plasma Treatment Approval

Futures Soars Above 3,400 To All Time High On Covid Plasma Treatment Approval

Tyler Durden

Mon, 08/24/2020 – 07:58

You knew it was coming when Trump scheduled his news conference to announce the FDA’s emergency authorization for convalescent plasma as a treatment for Covid-19 at 530pm on Sunday afternoon, half an hour before futures opened, and sure enough shortly after futures levitated to all time highs, hitting a record 3,422 moments ago, with European stocks rallying to a one-week high.

The FDA’s decision to use plasma from recovered patients was hailed by President Donald Trump and came a day after he accused it of impeding the rollout of treatments for political reasons. Further aiding market sentiment, was a report that the Trump administration is considering fast-tracking an experimental COVID-19 vaccine being developed by AstraZeneca for use in the United States before election. The news came on the eve of the Republican National Convention in which Trump will be nominated to lead his party for four more years, kicking off the final sprint to Nov. 3 Election Day.

US travel stocks, including American Airlines, United Airlines and Carnival all rose in pre-market trading. Meanwhile, the next phase of coronavirus government aid remained elusive as top Democrats and Republicans continued to blame each other for stalled talks on the legislation.

European equities extended opening gains, following US futures, and driven by the progress of various potential coronavirus treatments. Euro Stoxx 50 saw a broad base for 2.3% gain, with oil & gas, chemical and tech names outperforming. Telecom carrier BT Group jumped after Sky News reported that the board is on alert for takeover approaches.

Asian stocks also gained, led by communications and materials, getting a boost after a report that White House officials have reassured American businesses that a ban on its WeChat app won’t be as broad as feared. WeChat owner Tencent Holdings jumped the most in a month, gaining $37 billion. The Topix gained 0.2%, with TEMONA and St-Care HD rising the most. The Shanghai Composite Index rose 0.1%, with Suzhou Harmontronics and Shenyang Jinshan Energy posting the biggest advances. China’s ChiNext index reverses early drop to jump as much as 2.4% following sizzling tech IPOs and a trading-rule revamp to double daily price limits to 20%.

In commodities, Gold shrugged off its earlier losses to climb with copper and oil, while the dollar weakened. Crude was modestly higher with storms Marco and Laura are rolling toward the U.S. Gulf Coast, where they’ll come ashore as hurricanes as soon as Monday. Almost 58% of crude output in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico production has been shut down as the threat prompted evacuations of off-shore energy platforms and set residents and officials on edge from Texas to Florida.

In FX, the dollar fell as much as 0.3% with Goldman saying the case for USD depreciation remaining intact citing factors including USD being overvalued and US real interest rates to remain negative for several years, while it further cited a steady recovery of the economy from the pandemic. However, it also noted factors for consolidation to persist which includes pandemic uncertainty, Fed outlook and US politics.

Scandinavian currencies and the Aussie dollar led G-10 gains. The New Zealand dollar fell against most G-10 peers as a lockdown in the country’s largest city was extended. The country’s benchmark 10-year bond yield fell to hit a record mid- year low, after the central bank QE buying operation fell short of target. The euro held above $1.18 as investors showed interest to buy the common currency on any dips. One-week bullish sentiment in the euro slipped to its lowest in almost two months earlier on, as the dollar’s major peers enter correction mode in the cash market.

A key event this week would be the address by Fed Chair Jerome Powell at the Kansas City Fed Jackson Hole symposium, where he will talk on Thursday about the Fed’s long-awaited monetary policy framework review, which has focused on a new inflation strategy.

“We’re hoping to get some sort of hints as to where their fundamental view is going and there’s a lot of expectations around that,” said Marvin Barth, global head of foreign exchange and emerging markets macro strategy at Barclays Plc.

Also this week we get earnings from companies including, ICBC, PetroChina, HP Inc., Royal Bank of Canada, Best Buy and Dollar General. The U.S. Republican National Convention takes place, with Trump speaking the final day, Aug. 27. On today’s calendar we get the Chicago Fed National Activity Index, while Palo Alto Networks is reporting earnings.

Market Snapshot

  • S&P 500 futures up 0.7% to 3,417.50
  • STOXX Europe 600 up 1.5% to 370.38
  • MXAP up 0.8% to 172.09
  • MXAPJ up 1.1% to 569.42
  • Nikkei up 0.3% to 22,985.51
  • Topix up 0.2% to 1,607.13
  • Hang Seng Index up 1.7% to 25,551.58
  • Shanghai Composite up 0.2% to 3,385.64
  • Sensex up 1% to 38,834.70
  • Australia S&P/ASX 200 up 0.3% to 6,129.57
  • Kospi up 1.1% to 2,329.83
  • German 10Y yield rose 1.8 bps to -0.489%
  • Euro up 0.1% to $1.1813
  • Italian 10Y yield rose 3.0 bps to 0.819%
  • Spanish 10Y yield rose 2.0 bps to 0.318%
  • Brent futures up 0.7% to $44.65/bbl
  • Gold spot up 0.3% to $1,947.09
  • U.S. Dollar Index down 0.2% to 93.03

Top Overnight News from Bloomberg

  • U.S. President Donald Trump said a treatment based on blood plasma donated by people who’ve recovered from Covid-19 will be expanded, even before researchers fully understand how well it works. Infections in the U.S. eased, while Europe is seeing a resurgence of cases
  • The Trump administration is privately seeking to reassure U.S. companies including Apple Inc. that they can still do business with the WeChat messaging app in China, according to several people familiar with the matter, two weeks after President Donald Trump ordered a U.S. ban on the Chinese- owned service
  • Two hurricanes are expected to hit the U.S. gulf coast as soon as Monday. Offshore energy platforms were evacuated as the storms approached

Asian equity markets traded mostly positive and E-mini S&P topped the 3,400 mark following Friday’s tech-fuelled gains on Wall St and the recent emergency use authorization of convalescent plasma for treatment of COVID-19 which was suggested to reduce mortality by 35%, but with gains capped by US-China decoupling concerns following comments by US President Trump. ASX 200 (+0.3%) and Nikkei 225 (+0.3%) were initially indecisive before outperformance in tech then proved to be the deciding factor to keep stocks afloat in Australia and with earnings results the main catalyst for the biggest stock movers, while the Japanese benchmark was also higher as it made another attempt at the 23,000 focal point. Hang Seng (+1.7%) and Shanghai Comp. (+0.2%) were underpinned by another firm liquidity effort by the PBoC, although gains in the mainland were tempered by the ongoing US-China tensions after President Trump raised the prospect of decoupling from China and suggested the US does not have to do business with China. In addition, the People’s Liberation Army are to conduct military drills across 3 major Chinese sea regions in the approaching days which is aimed at deterring Taiwan secessionists and the US, while increased IPO activity also attracts funds from the broader market with 18 firms listing in the ChiNext today as part of reforms in the tech board aimed at fast-tracking IPOs and which saw some of the newly-listed names surge as much as 500%. Finally, 10yr JGBs were positive despite the mild gains in stocks as prices tracked recent upside in T-notes and with the BoJ also present in the market for a total of JPY 450bln of JGBs predominantly concentrated in 3yr-5yr maturities.

Top Asian News

  • Japan’s Abe Visits Hospital Again Amid Speculation About Health
  • AMP Chair Murray Quits, Pahari Demoted After Investor Revolt
  • Delivery Giant Meituan Soars Most Since March After Sales Beat
  • Tourist Hotspot Bali to Stay Closed to Foreign Visitors All Year

European equities kick the week off on a firm footing (Euro Stoxx 50 +1.8%) as the region picked up the baton from a similarly positive APAC session. Some attribute upside in stocks, and generally firmer sentiment, to the US FDA authorising the emergency use of convalescent plasma as a treatment for hospitalised COVID-19 patients, but the FDA indicated that more trials are needed to prove its effectiveness. It is also worth keeping in mind that against the backdrop of global monetary and fiscal stimulus, a lack of “bad news” can be sufficient to support equity sentiment, particularly during thinned holiday trading. Furthermore, the US and the EU have signed a “mini-deal” in which the EU agreed to eliminate tariffs on US lobsters in exchange for the US halving import taxes on around USD 160mln worth of European goods. Although, the size seems relatively small, the deal signals a shift in sentiment between the two nations, which provides scope for further potential agreements between the two sides. A slight dichotomy is seen between the European and US index futures, with the former outperforming the state-side contracts, potentially due to (to some degree) tail risks heading into Fed’s Jackson Hole Symposium, US GDP and PCE releases this week, alongside stalled fiscal stimulus talks. Sectors are all higher but provide little by way of a bias, with Oil & Gas the marked outperformer amid recent gains in the complex, whilst IT follows a close second a continuation of the sector’s rally on Wall Street on Friday. Travel & Leisure names lag as some APAC countries/states/cities mull extending lockdown orders, including South Korea, Australia’s Victoria state and New Zealand’s Auckland. In terms of individual movers: BT (+5.7%) tops the Stoxx 600 board on the back of reports that the Co. is gearing up to defend itself for takeover approaches by Private Equity firms. The Co. is yet to receive a formal bid, but PE firms are reportedly looking into such a move. Meanwhile, AstraZeneca (+3.1%) is supported by reports that the Trump Admin is reportedly considering fast-tracking the Co’s COVID-19 vaccine candidate to have it in use ahead of the November election. Finally, Wirecard (-2.5%) holds its position as a laggard after being formally dropped out of the DAX 30 and replaced by Delivery Hero (+1.3%).

Top European News

  • EU Trade Chief Fights to Keep His Job After Pandemic Stumble
  • Johnson Pleads With U.K. Parents to Send Children to School
  • Italy Lockdown Success Challenged by New Europe Virus Surge
  • Italy’s Unloved Banks Move Closer to Credit-Market Redemption

In FX, the Aussie is benefiting from broad risk appetite and ongoing weakness in the Kiwi on NZ’s COVID-19 related problems and disappointing data in the form of Q2 retail sales. Hence, Aud/Usd is holding relatively firm in the high 0.7100 area, while Aud/Nzd retests 1.1000 and Nzd/Usd languishes below 0.6550 ahead of NZ trade for the first month of the current quarter on Tuesday evening. Back to the cross, a very large 1.4 bn option expiry at the 1.1000 strike may cap the upside ahead of the NY cut.

  • USD/EUR – Not quite role reversal, but a marked change of fortunes as the Dollar loses post-US PMI momentum and the DXY struggles to maintain 93.000+ status within a 93.016-266 range. Accordingly, the Euro has pared losses and is back above 1.1800, albeit tentatively as 2nd waves of the coronavirus spread across the Eurozone.
  • CAD/CHF/GBP/JPY – All narrowly mixed against the Greenback, with the Loonie towards the base of a 1.3186-52 band and deriving some traction from crude prices that are mildly bid on weather induced production cuts and site evacuations. Elsewhere, the Franc is hovering around 0.9100 and 1.0750 vs the Euro after less pronounced increases in Swiss bank sight deposits, Sterling has unwound more UK PMI gains amidst the ongoing Brexit trade stalemate, with Cable under 1.3100 and Eur/Gbp above 0.9000, while the Yen is caught between 105.94-70 parameters and 50/100 HMAs that sit at 105.84 and 105.70 respectively.
  • SCANDI/EM – Bullish risk sentiment and the aforementioned upturn in oil are keeping the Sek and Nok underpinned, while the Cnh has extended advances from a stronger PBoC Cny fix overnight through 6.9050, but the Try is lagging sub-7.3500 in wake of Fitch downgrading Turkey’s sovereign ratings outlook to negative from stable. Elsewhere, the Rub, Zar and Mxn all gleaning degrees of support from underlying commodities, while the Brl awaits Brazilian consumer confidence.

In commodities, WTI and Brent front month futures continue to eke mild gains in early European hours, with prices supported by the overall constructive tone across the market coupled by supply woes as the Gulf of Mexico is poised for a double whammy from Tropical Storms Marco and Laura – with the former set to make landfall later today and the latter on Wednesday. Reports noted that as of Sunday, around 58% of the Gulf of Mexico production has been shuttered, according to the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement – equating to around 1mln BPD. Desks also point to the fragility of refining activity amidst floods. “Although given the large amount of refined product stocks at the moment, the market would likely be able to handle any disruptions to refined product supply better this time around” analysts at ING conclude. WTI Oct meanders just north of USD 42.50/bbl (vs. low 42.23/bbl) whilst its Brent counterpart similarly resides above USD 44.50/bbl (vs. low 44.29/bbl) – with the WTI/Brent arb tightening on the aforementioned Gulf of Mexico developments. Elsewhere, spot gold and silver have recovered from overnight lows in tandem with losses in the Dollar. The yellow metal eyes USD 1950/oz vs. low 1930.30/oz) to the upside whilst spot silver nurses overnight losses to reclaim a firmer footing above USD 26.50/oz (vs. low 26.25/oz). Turning to base metals, Dalian iron ore futures closed lower by almost 2% with traders citing dampening demand for steel products amid seasonal effects and floods. Conversely, LME copper rises amid the gains in stocks, softer Dollar and with inventories falling to a 13-year low.

US Event Calendar

  • 8:30am: Chicago Fed Nat Activity Index, est. 3.7, prior 4.1

DB’s Henry Allen concludes the overnight wrap

Happy Monday to our readers and hope you all had a good weekend. With Jim having been off the last two weeks and Craig’s wife almost due to give birth, I’ve been super-subbed off the bench to write your favourite email this morning. While I appreciate Jim may be twice the man that I am, or at least twice my age, I just hope you’ll think of me as the rising star of the team rather than the third choice.

The main focus over the weekend continued to be the covid-19 pandemic, as the number of confirmed global deaths surpassed 800,000. In spite of its relative success in suppressing the first wave of the virus, it’s Europe that’s begun to re-emerge as a source of concern in recent days given the latest rises in case numbers, a trend that continued through the weekend. In fact, Sunday saw France report 4,897 cases, the most since mid-April, while Italy reported 1,210, which was the most since mid-May, so investors are likely to be on the lookout for any further increases and what that might mean for the likelihood of further lockdowns or re-imposing restrictions.

Against this backdrop, President Trump announced last night that the FDA had issued an emergency use authorisation for convalescent plasma to treat hospitalised patients, which involves using blood plasma from those who’ve recovered from the virus. There were also some reports about possible vaccine developments, with the FT saying that the Trump administration were considering bypassing normal regulatory standards when it came for the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine, possibly with another emergency use authorisation.

In terms of the latest overnight, it was announced by New Zealand Prime Ardern that the lockdown in Auckland would be extended to midnight on August 30, having been until August 26 previously. Meanwhile in South Korea, which reported a further 266 cases in the last 24 hours, there’s concern that the country could move up to Level 3 social distancing, the highest level the country has, that would involve closing schools and recommending employees work from home. It follows a senior health official saying yesterday that the country would review the possibility. In spite of the possibility of further restrictions however, equity markets in Asia are trading higher this morning, with the Hang Seng (+1.47%) leading the way. Other indices are also up, including the Nikkei (+0.17%), Shanghai Comp (+0.18%) and the Kospi (+0.81%). And finally we could see another record high for the S&P 500 today, with futures this morning up +0.26%.

Looking to the week ahead now, the highlight is likely to be the Jackson Hole gathering on Thursday and Friday, where central bankers will be meeting (virtually this year) for the annual economic symposium. This theme on this occasion is “Navigating the Decade Ahead: Implications for Monetary Policy”, and one of the key highlights will be Fed Chair Powell’s speech on Thursday on the topic of the monetary policy review. According to our US economists, while it’s possible that the policy review results will be released along with Powell’s appearance, they think it’s more likely that he summarises the key findings and outlines the likely implications for the Fed moving forward. They think instead the review results won’t be released until the next meeting in mid-September. In addition to Powell, central bank watchers will have plenty of other speakers to look out for at the gathering, including Bank of England Governor Bailey, ECB chief economist Lane, and Bank of Canada Governor Macklem.

Turning to politics, attention will also be on the Republican National Convention taking place this week from Monday to Thursday, even if there aren’t likely to be as many market-moving headlines compared to Jackson Hole. Nevertheless, a CNN report said that President Trump would be appearing on every night of the convention, according to a Republican familiar with the convention planning, on top of his own speech planned for the Thursday night. So that could generate some news depending on the nature of any remarks. There are just over 10 weeks to go now until election day on November 3rd, and according to the polling averages, President Trump continues to lag behind Biden, with FiveThirtyEight’s average giving Biden a 9.2pt lead over Trump.

On the data side, we don’t have many top-tier releases with the US jobs report not until the following week. However, tomorrow will see both the Ifo’s business climate indicator from Germany, as well as the Conference Board’s consumer confidence from the US. On the latter, our economists think that the recent breakdown in fiscal negotiations in Congress could weigh on consumer attitudes, and see the number falling to 92.0 (vs. 92.6 in July).

Looking back to last week now, and US equity markets rose for a fourth straight week on the back of improving economic data and a further subsiding of coronavirus cases. The S&P 500 rose 0.72% (+0.34% Friday) on the week as it rose to a record high, while the tech-focused Nasdaq saw an even stronger performance over the week – up +2.65% (+0.42% Friday) – as the mega-cap growth stocks continue to pull US equities higher. In Europe, the Stoxx 600 ended the week -0.81% lower (-0.15% Friday) as economic data showed some signs of the recovery losing momentum. Other major European bourses similarly moved lower on the week as coronavirus cases continue to rise once again on the continent, with the DAX (-1.06%), CAC (-1.34%), FTSE 100 (-1.45%) and FTSE MIB (-1.66%) all losing ground.

Core sovereign bond yields fell over the course of the week after rising sharply during the week before. 10yr Treasury yields fell -8.1bps (-2.3bps Friday) to finish at 0.628%, while 10yr Bund yields declined -8.6bps (-1.1bps Friday) to -0.51%. Meanwhile the dollar rose marginally (+0.16%) as it recovered from the 2-year low it had set earlier in the week.

Against this backdrop, Friday also saw the latest round of negotiations between the UK and the EU conclude with no further progress on the key outstanding issues. The UK’s chief negotiator Frost blamed the EU’s insistence on the UK accepting continuity with EU state aid and fisheries policy before work could be done on other areas. And the EU’s chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, said that an agreement “seems unlikely” at this stage, and reiterated their existing demand that “The need for a Level Playing field is not going to go away.” The next round of talks takes place from September 7th. We saw a similar stalemate in the US with regards to fiscal stimulus talks. Republican senator Kennedy of Louisiana said late Friday that nothing’s changed on the talks, which could mean that both sides are unlikely to reach a deal even on a skinny deal before lawmakers return from recess in September.

Finally on the data front, the flash Euro Area PMIs lost momentum in August, which confounded expectations for largely unchanged readings. The composite Euro Area PMI fell to 51.6 in August, having been at 54.9 in July, while the French (-5.6pts to 51.7) and German (-1.6pts to 53.7) also saw significant declines. DB’s Peter Sidorov put out a note on Friday about this (link here), where he points out that the market shouldn’t have been that surprised, considering the signals from the recent mobility data. The UK saw a stronger move (+3.3pts to 60.3) but this simply reflects the UK climbing out of a more protracted trough rather than a higher level of activity. Elsewhere, US existing home sales rose to 5.86m (vs. 5.41m expected) from 4.72m in June. This was the strongest pace since 2006 and the highest one month percentage increase on record as low mortgage rates continue to support the real estate market.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3gpdvob Tyler Durden

Ardern Extends Auckland Lockdown As Global Cases, Deaths Decline: Live Updates

Ardern Extends Auckland Lockdown As Global Cases, Deaths Decline: Live Updates

Tyler Durden

Mon, 08/24/2020 – 07:50

Summary:

  • Ardern extends Auckland lockdown by 4 days
  • India reports 61k+ new cases
  • South Korea reports 266 new cases, highest since March
  • China reports 16 new ‘imported’ cases
  • Victoria reports 116 new cases

* * *

Perhaps the biggest COVID-19-related story in the anglosphere overnight was an announcement by New Zealand PM Jacinda Ardern, who announced a 4-day extension to Auckland’s strict lockdown, which will now end on Aug. 30, instead of Aug. 26.  Speaking to reporters in Wellington (New Zealand’s capital city), Ardern said Auckland would leave the lockdown at midnight on the 30th.

“These extra four days are believed necessary to allow us to move down a level in Auckland, and stay down,” Ardern said. Auckland is currently at Level 3 COVID alert, though the outbreak in the country has almost certainly been contained due to the country’s overwhelming response, which drove an economy that was recovering nicely from a previous lockdown back into precarious closure.

Economists at Westpac Banking have estimated the Auckland lockdown will reduce GDP by roughly NZ$300 million ($196 million) per week, according to Bloomberg.

“We’ve made a decision around a four-day increase versus the potential that you come out prematurely without the full confidence that we have the cluster and the full perimeter of that cluster well understood,” Ardern said. “You then run the risk of going into another transmission cycle. The idea of yo-yo-ing is very, very unsettling for an economy and comes with a high price.”

Auckland is on track to shift to level 2 on Aug. 31, allowing schools, restaurants and hotels, retail and other businesses to reopen, although gatherings will still most likely be limited.

The remainder of New Zealand will remain at level 2, with a further review of all settings to be made by Sept. 6, Ardern said.

Furthermore, the government plans to mandate face masks on public transport, including taxis and ride-sharing services like Uber, in areas that are in level 2 or higher. The new regulation is effective beginning Aug. 31.

Source: Worldometer

The Auckland cluster has increased to 101 cases, while confounding New Zealand’s contact tracing army.

“This is a contained cluster, but it is our biggest one,” Ardern said. “That means the tail will be long, and the cases will keep coming for a while to come. But we can manage that. What we need to do though, is put ourselves in the best long-term position to manage it successfully, and in the most contained way we can.”

In other news, India reported 61,408 cases in the last 24 hours, down from 69,239 the previous day and bringing the country total to 3.1 million. Fatalities have risen to 57,542, up 836 since Sunday morning.

Source: Worldometer

Seoul requires face masks for both indoor and outdoor public spaces for the first time, as the country battles a surge in cases. In May, the city government had ordered that masks be worn on public transport and taxis, but the latest spike has officials worried that the country may need to impose its highest level of social distancing.

South Korea reported 266 new cases as of midnight Sunday, continuing more than a week of triple-digit daily increases.

China reported 16 new cases for Sunday, all of which were imported, health authorities said. That’s larger than the 12 new cases reported in the day prior, while marking the eighth consecutive day of no reported cases of local transmission. The total number of confirmed cases now stands at 84,967, while the death toll remains unchanged at 4,634.

Australia’s state of Victoria reported 116 cases, it’s lowest daily rise in new infections in seven weeks, fueling optimism that a second wave in the land down under is finally subsiding. Sadly, Victoria also reports 15 deaths from the virus in the past 24 hours.

Globally, both cases…

Source: Worldometer

…and deaths…

Source: Worldometer

…have declined overnight.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2QlsTY0 Tyler Durden

ISIS “Terrorist Attack” On Syrian Gas Pipeline Triggers Nationwide Blackout

ISIS “Terrorist Attack” On Syrian Gas Pipeline Triggers Nationwide Blackout

Tyler Durden

Mon, 08/24/2020 – 07:27

A massive explosion seen along the Arab Gas Pipeline, outside Damascus early on Monday, resulting in power outages across Syria was likely an attack by Islamic State (formerly ISIS/ISIL), according to Reuters, citing state media and the country’s energy minister. 

“Assessments show that the explosion … was the result of a terrorist attack,” Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) quoted Minister of Petroleum and Mineral Resources Ali Ghanem as saying. There were no further details of how terrorists managed to blow up the 36-inch pipeline. 

According to the US envoy for Syrian affairs James Jeffrey, the explosion was likely an attack by the Islamic State: “We are still looking into that. But it was almost certainly a strike by ISIS,” Jeffrey said, as cited by Reuters.

Ghanem said electricity was gradually being restored to the country’s provinces, and some power returned to Damascus. 

The location of the damaged pipeline was between the suburbs of Al-Dhumayr and Adra, and caused a rapid decline in gas supply to the country’s top power stations, triggering a nationwide blackout. 

Even though the fire was extinguished, blackouts were still seen in the capital, with some power late Monday restored to hospitals and government buildings in Damascus.

Reuters noted the Arab Gas Pipeline system stretches from Egypt into Jordan and Syria.

Targeting of the pipeline comes as Turkish-backed forces cut water supply to over one million people in the country. 

Syria faces increasing economic instability, and a flare-up in fighting following Trump’s “secure the oil” policy in the country led to a recent skirmish between US occupying forces and the Syrian Army.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3hpYQdB Tyler Durden

Jo Jorgensen Is the 2020 Libertarian Party Presidential Nominee

q&a

Jo Jorgensen, a senior lecturer in psychology at Clemson University, had such a wonderful time running as the Libertarian Party (L.P.) vice presidential candidate in 1996, on a ticket with Harry Browne, that she has contemplated taking a swing at the top slot ever since. On May 24, she won her party’s nomination for president.

Reason‘s Brian Doherty spoke with Jorgensen by phone just before she was named the 2020 L.P. presidential nominee in an online convention. They spoke about how the party can appeal to Democratic and Republican voters and what libertarianism can offer America in the midst of the economic crisis brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Q: What do you think the Libertarian delegates want in a candidate this year?

A: They want what I’m selling: a candidate both practical and principled.

Q: COVID-19, though not something anyone was thinking about when this campaign began, is going to be the dominant issue. What’s your take on it for a national electorate?

A: The [pandemic response] has been the biggest assault on our liberties in our lifetime, and it’s two-pronged. There’s the personal assault, with us all under house arrest. We can’t go to our jobs, we can’t go to funerals [and] weddings, we can’t see our families.

Then there’s the economic aspect. The fact that the government is bailing out companies with $2 trillion.…Whenever the government spends money, [it goes] to their friends, special interests, and lobbyists. It would be better if Americans got to keep their money. Let them decide which companies deserve money, not the government.

Q: Are there any aspects of a hardcore Libertarian message you think are just totally unpalatable to a typical voter?

A: I am supporting the Libertarian platform plank for plank. But what is not persuasive is someone just saying, “I’m for liberty and freedom” and that’s all. The people who will be [convinced] by liberty and freedom for their own sake are probably already in the party. What we have to do is convince soccer moms, businesspeople, the average person that our ideas will work better.

Q: What are some other issues you’d expect to be front and center?

A: Health care is urgent—literally life or death. If we don’t stop the path to single payer, it’s going to be disastrous for the country. It’s the most frustrating thing that [many Americans blame our health care issues on a failure] of free markets. I want to shout from the rooftops that we do not have a free market system in health care and how if we tried free markets, they would work.

I’d also talk about bringing the troops home and the environment. I’d stress that if you look around the globe [historically], you see wherever there is bigger government, there’s more pollution. As far as global warming, I don’t want to get in a debate about how we got here. I want to talk about how to get the cleanest Earth we can get, and if we don’t want global warming, then nuclear power is the best option.

On immigration, I would put forward the message of the party platform. A lot of so-called immigrant crimes are not stealing money but just crossing the border. If you look at the economic impact overall, it’s a net positive. I’d also like to mention I’m the granddaughter of three immigrants and my attitude is not “I’m the last one in, close the door behind me.” I want the country more open to everyone, not for their sake but for America’s sake.

Q: What would you say to Trump voters?

A: I would tell them you voted last time—sometimes for the first time or the first time in 20 years—because you were tired of the same old politicians and wanted something different. But he got into office and acted like all the others. He said he’d cut the government’s size, and instead it’s bigger. He said he’d get rid of the deficit, and he’s going in the other direction. You wanted something new. [A Libertarian] is something new—not just another big-government spender.

This interview has been condensed and edited for style and clarity.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/32eS0Bq
via IFTTT