“The View” dedicated the entirety of their Monday episode to celebrating Juneteenth, and it began with a bit of surprise out of Alabama, at least for Whoopi Goldberg.
“We’re gonna celebrate something I think very few of us ever thought we were gonna be celebrating,” Goldberg said with a chuckle. “But recently, the Supreme Court ruled that Alabama’s electoral maps unlawfully continued to dilute Black voters’ power. The Supreme Court said, ‘Hey! Quit it!'”
Once she got over her visible shock, the moderator continued, explaining the case it more concisely: “Now, I was kind of surprised because they’ve not given any feeling like they were on top of voters’ rights, in particular for people of color, so…”
Indeed, on Thursday, June 8, the Supreme Court ruled that the state had weakened the power of Black voters with a new drawing of a congressional voting map, and thus rejected it.
“We’re gonna celebrate something I think very few of us ever thought we were gonna be celebrating,” Goldberg said with a chuckle. “But recently, the Supreme Court ruled that Alabama’s electoral maps unlawfully continued to dilute Black voters’ power. The Supreme Court said, ‘Hey! Quit it!'”
Once she got over her visible shock, the moderator continued, explaining the case it more concisely: “Now, I was kind of surprised because they’ve not given any feeling like they were on top of voters’ rights, in particular for people of color, so…”
Indeed, on Thursday, June 8, the Supreme Court ruled that the state had weakened the power of Black voters with a new drawing of a congressional voting map, and thus rejected it.
- 6/19/2023
- by Andi Ortiz
- The Wrap
The United States Supreme Court has ruled that California Governor Gavin Newsom’s orders banning indoor church services may violate the Constitution’s protections on religion. The order effectively lifts the state ban on indoor religious gatherings.
In a 6-3 decision, the Justices granted an appeal late Friday evening from a south San Diego church that challenged the restrictions. The ruling set aside decisions by federal judges in San Diego and San Bernardino and the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. All of those courts upheld the state’s orders.
“While granting the rights to gather in worship, the Supreme Court said limiting attendance to 25% of the building’s capacity is okay, and further restrictions on singing and chanting – a sticking point with the San Diego church – could also be curtailed.
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty said that California is “the only state to ban indoor...
In a 6-3 decision, the Justices granted an appeal late Friday evening from a south San Diego church that challenged the restrictions. The ruling set aside decisions by federal judges in San Diego and San Bernardino and the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. All of those courts upheld the state’s orders.
“While granting the rights to gather in worship, the Supreme Court said limiting attendance to 25% of the building’s capacity is okay, and further restrictions on singing and chanting – a sticking point with the San Diego church – could also be curtailed.
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty said that California is “the only state to ban indoor...
- 2/6/2021
- by Bruce Haring
- Deadline Film + TV
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the presiding Supreme Court justice on issues of women’s rights and gender equality, has died at the age of 87. Her passing comes at the end of a long battle with cancer, which had recently returned even though she, all the while, chose to remain on the Supreme Court bench. Ginsburg has served on the Supreme Court since August 1993, after then-President Bill Clinton nominated her in June of that year. She died of metastatic pancreatic cancer in her home in Washington, DC.
“Our nation has lost a jurist of historic stature,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said in a statement (via The New York Times). “We at the Supreme Court have lost a cherished colleague. Today we mourn, but with confidence that future generations will remember Ruth Bader Ginsburg as we knew her — a tireless and resolute champion of justice.”
This news of Ginsburg’s passing...
“Our nation has lost a jurist of historic stature,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said in a statement (via The New York Times). “We at the Supreme Court have lost a cherished colleague. Today we mourn, but with confidence that future generations will remember Ruth Bader Ginsburg as we knew her — a tireless and resolute champion of justice.”
This news of Ginsburg’s passing...
- 9/18/2020
- by Ryan Lattanzio
- Indiewire
After mansplaining, the next worse thing for a woman is to be repeatedly interrupted by a man. Especially if you are a female justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. But female Supreme Court justices are being interrupted by the male justices at approximately three times the rate of their male colleagues during oral arguments, according to a new study to be published in the Virginia Law Review this fall. The most-interrupted female justice is 84-year-old Ruth Bader Ginsberg. “Ginsburg is interrupted six times as often” as her male colleagues Justices Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor is.
- 4/14/2017
- by Susan Seager
- The Wrap
5:50 P.M. Pst -- President Obama just set the stage for political war, vowing to "fulfill my constitutional duties" and send a Supreme Court nominee to the Senate. The Republican leadership has made it clear they don't want an Obama nominee. Since the Republicans control the Senate, it's game on.U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, the heart and soul of the conservative justices, was found dead Saturday morning in Texas. Scalia arrived at...
- 2/13/2016
- by TMZ Staff
- TMZ
Washington (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a copyright lawsuit over the 1980 Oscar-winning movie "Raging Bull" can go forward, a decision that could open Hollywood studios to more claims from people seeking a share of profits from classic films, TV shows and other creative works. In a 6-3 decision, the justices said that Paula Petrella, daughter of the late screenwriter Frank Petrella, did not wait too long to file her lawsuit against Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer claiming an interest in the film. Petrella's father collaborated with legendary boxer Jake Lamotta on a book and two screenplays, which inspired the movie directed by Martin Scorsese and starring Robert DeNiro. The elder Petrella died in 1981 and the copyrights passed to his daughter. She sued MGM in 2009 seeking royalties from continuing commercial use of the film. But a federal judge said she waited too long because she had been aware of the potential to file...
- 5/19/2014
- by Sam Hananel (AP)
- Hitfix
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding the Broadcast Networks suit against Aereo Tuesday, April 22.
Broadcast Networks vs. Aereo
Aereo is a new company that combines free antenna television access to public networks with the facility and perks of streaming video and a DVR. Essentially, Aereo uses antennas to transmit television broadcast signals directly to individual subscribers. Subscribers can record certain shows, which will be stored in the cloud (internet storage) and be accessible to any connected mobile device.
Aereo may sound like an extension of Netflix Instant Watch or Hulu, or even a regular cable or dish subscription, but what makes it different is it’s use of free antenna signals. Because Aereo uses antennas to receive broadcast TV signals, the company doesn’t pay the broadcast networks for their content, as cable companies do. As a result, the broadcasting networks, NBC, Fox, CBS, PBS, Univision, Telemundo and ABC...
Broadcast Networks vs. Aereo
Aereo is a new company that combines free antenna television access to public networks with the facility and perks of streaming video and a DVR. Essentially, Aereo uses antennas to transmit television broadcast signals directly to individual subscribers. Subscribers can record certain shows, which will be stored in the cloud (internet storage) and be accessible to any connected mobile device.
Aereo may sound like an extension of Netflix Instant Watch or Hulu, or even a regular cable or dish subscription, but what makes it different is it’s use of free antenna signals. Because Aereo uses antennas to receive broadcast TV signals, the company doesn’t pay the broadcast networks for their content, as cable companies do. As a result, the broadcasting networks, NBC, Fox, CBS, PBS, Univision, Telemundo and ABC...
- 4/23/2014
- Uinterview
Grappling with fast-changing technology, Supreme Court justices debated Tuesday whether they can protect the copyrights of TV broadcasters to the shows they send out without strangling innovations in the use of the internet.
The high court heard arguments in a dispute between television broadcasters and Aereo Inc., which takes free television signals from the airwaves and charges subscribers to watch the programs on laptop computers, smartphones and even their large-screen televisions. The case has the potential to bring big changes to the television industry.
There was a good measure of skepticism about Aereo’s approach, sometimes leavened with humor. Chief Justice John Roberts...
The high court heard arguments in a dispute between television broadcasters and Aereo Inc., which takes free television signals from the airwaves and charges subscribers to watch the programs on laptop computers, smartphones and even their large-screen televisions. The case has the potential to bring big changes to the television industry.
There was a good measure of skepticism about Aereo’s approach, sometimes leavened with humor. Chief Justice John Roberts...
- 4/22/2014
- by Associated Press
- EW - Inside TV
If you thought that the legal dispute between Aereo and the broadcasters was combative, it paled compared with today’s one-hour hearing at the Supreme Court. In oral arguments before the nine Justices, both sides took some heavy blows, but the Barry Diller-backed streaming service definitely took one to the jaw from Chief Justice John Roberts. “Your technological model is based solely on circumventing legal prohibitions that you don’t want to comply with,” Roberts told Aereo attorney David Frederick during the presentation before a packed chamber. “There’s no reason for you to have 10,000 dime-sized antennas except to get around the Copyright Act,” he said. Added Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: ”You are the only player so far that pays no royalties whatsoever.” Coming after arguments from the broadcasters by former Solicitor General Paul Clement and current Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart, Frederick started off his presentation by...
- 4/22/2014
- by DOMINIC PATTEN
- Deadline TV
The Supreme Court will hand down two eagerly sought decisions on civil unions on Wednesday, the last day of the court's current term. At the close of Tuesday's court session, Chief Justice John Roberts announced that all remaining cases will be announced at Wednesday's session. Also read: Prop 8 at Supreme Court: How TV Helped Clear the Way for Same-Sex Marriage One of the civil union cases challenges the Defense of Marriage Act, defining a marriage for federal purposes as being between a man and a woman. The other covers the fate of Proposition...
- 6/25/2013
- by Ira Teinowitz
- The Wrap
U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts has announced that the remaining opinions of the current term will be released on Wednesday at 10 a.m. Est. As a result, two eagerly awaited rulings on same-sex marriage will be delivered tomorrow. In a week that has seen the high court direct lower courts to exercise more scrutiny toward affirmative action programs, strike down an important provision of the Voting Rights Act and toughen the standards by which labor lawsuits are brought, the justices' opinions on the constitutionality of restrictions on gay marriage have been left until the final day. In March, the
read more...
read more...
- 6/25/2013
- by Eriq Gardner
- The Hollywood Reporter - Movie News
Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, hearing the first of two oral arguments this week on same-sex marriage, on Tuesday repeatedly raised procedural questions about a case involving the legality of California's 2008 Proposition 8 ban on same sex marriages. The court also took the unusual step of releasing a tape of the morning arguments shortly after the arguments concluded. (Listen to the arguments here or read the transcript here.) Seconds into attorney Charles J. Cooper defense of the legality Prop 8, Chief Justice John Roberts interrupted, questioning Cooper's authority to argue on...
- 3/26/2013
- by Ira Teinowitz
- The Wrap
Despite a hurricane that threatens much of the Northeast, the U.S. Supreme Court opened as usual Monday morning. Justice John Roberts, just named as a "Brave Thinker" by The Atlantic for his role in upholding the Affordable Care Act this year, is defying a storm that has caused the shutdown of most federal government agencies, transportation and many businesses from Washington up to Connecticut. The entertainment industry in the region will grind to a halt in reaction to 90 mph winds, but Hurricane Sandy doesn't have standing at the high court. At the Supreme Court, the show is going
read more...
read more...
- 10/29/2012
- by Eriq Gardner
- The Hollywood Reporter - Movie News
The Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Care Act was about a bazillion years ago. However, some people are still angry about it. Shockingly (Shockingly!!!), the man who once wrote a book called "Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America" is one of them. That man, of course, is conservative radio host Mark Levin. Levin is furious at the recent CBS News report that Chief Justice John Roberts may have been swayed by the media. Levin is so furious at this kind of media tomfoolery that he went on Fox News and called for Roberts to lose his job. Shockingly (Shockingly!!!), it would appear that some media pressure is better than others.
- 7/3/2012
- by Jon Bershad
- Mediaite - TV
Washington -- The Supreme Court on Friday morning officially relieved CBS of a $550,000 fine over Janet Jackson's infamous "wardrobe malfunction" during the 2004 Super Bowl Halftime Show.
The justices denied the government's petition in Federal Communications Commission v. CBS to review a lower court's decision that the hefty penalty for the brief moment when cameras caught Jackson's accidentally exposed breast constituted an unlawfully arbitrary departure from the FCC's prior policy of looking the other way when network censors failed to catch fleeting expletives.
Last week, the Supreme Court had dodged a First Amendment challenge brought by Fox and ABC against the Bush administration's more aggressive policing of broadcast indecency, instead throwing out the fines because the FCC had given "no notice to Fox or ABC that a fleeting expletive or a brief shot of nudity could be actionably indecent." The decision in FCC v. Fox Television Stations came as a surprise,...
The justices denied the government's petition in Federal Communications Commission v. CBS to review a lower court's decision that the hefty penalty for the brief moment when cameras caught Jackson's accidentally exposed breast constituted an unlawfully arbitrary departure from the FCC's prior policy of looking the other way when network censors failed to catch fleeting expletives.
Last week, the Supreme Court had dodged a First Amendment challenge brought by Fox and ABC against the Bush administration's more aggressive policing of broadcast indecency, instead throwing out the fines because the FCC had given "no notice to Fox or ABC that a fleeting expletive or a brief shot of nudity could be actionably indecent." The decision in FCC v. Fox Television Stations came as a surprise,...
- 6/29/2012
- by Mike Sacks
- Huffington Post
Washington — The Supreme Court decided Friday not to consider reinstating the government's $550,000 fine on CBS for Janet Jackson's infamous breast-baring "wardrobe malfunction" at the 2004 Super Bowl.
The high court refused to hear an appeal from the Federal Communications Commission over the penalty.
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals twice had thrown out the fine. The second time came after the Supreme Court upheld the FCC's policy threatening fines against even one-time uses of curse words on live television.
The appeals court said FCC's policy of excusing fleeting instances of indecent words and images appeared to change without notice in March 2004, a month after Jackson's halftime act. The judges said that made the agency's action against CBS "arbitrary and capricious."
But now, the FCC clearly has abandoned its exception for fleeting expletives, Chief Justice John Roberts said.
"It is now clear that the brevity of an indecent broadcast...
The high court refused to hear an appeal from the Federal Communications Commission over the penalty.
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals twice had thrown out the fine. The second time came after the Supreme Court upheld the FCC's policy threatening fines against even one-time uses of curse words on live television.
The appeals court said FCC's policy of excusing fleeting instances of indecent words and images appeared to change without notice in March 2004, a month after Jackson's halftime act. The judges said that made the agency's action against CBS "arbitrary and capricious."
But now, the FCC clearly has abandoned its exception for fleeting expletives, Chief Justice John Roberts said.
"It is now clear that the brevity of an indecent broadcast...
- 6/29/2012
- by AP
- Huffington Post
The Supreme Court decided Friday not to consider reinstating the government’s $550,000 fine on CBS for Janet Jackson’s infamous breast-bearing “wardrobe malfunction” at the 2004 Super Bowl. The high court refused to hear an appeal from the Federal Communications Commission over the penalty.
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals twice had thrown out the fine. The second time came after the Supreme Court upheld the FCC’s policy threatening fines against even one-time uses of curse words on live television.
The appeals court said FCC’s policy of excusing fleeting instances of indecent words and images appeared to...
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals twice had thrown out the fine. The second time came after the Supreme Court upheld the FCC’s policy threatening fines against even one-time uses of curse words on live television.
The appeals court said FCC’s policy of excusing fleeting instances of indecent words and images appeared to...
- 6/29/2012
- by Associated Press
- EW - Inside TV
It’s a mixed day for broadcasters at the U.S. Supreme Court — but with a limited win for CBS in the case of Janet Jackson’s famously exposed nipple in her performance with Justin Timberlake at the 2004 Super Bowl. Justices upheld a lower court ruling that overturned the FCC’s $550,000 fine against the network for violating rules that limit indecent broadcasts. It was unclear at the time whether the FCC’s ban on fleeting expletives also applied to fleeting images, Chief Justice John Roberts said — adding, though, that Jackson and Timberlake “strained the credulity of the public by terming the episode a ‘wardrobe malfunction’.” Since then, the FCC has clarified its rules somewhat. “It is now clear that the brevity of an indecent broadcast—be it word or image—cannot immunize it from FCC censure,” he says. As a result, “any future ‘wardrobe malfunctions’ will not be protected” on the same grounds.
- 6/29/2012
- by DAVID LIEBERMAN, Executive Editor
- Deadline TV
Washington -- The Supreme Court ruled Thursday against the Federal Communications Commission's policy on fleeting expletives over the airwaves, vacating the lower court's decision on due process and fair notice grounds. It ducked the larger First Amendment issues about regulating broadcast indecency in Fox v. FCC.
The Court took issue with the fact that the FCC did not fully articulate its rule against fleeting expletives until 2004 -- after the Fox and ABC incidents at issue. "A fundamental principle in our legal system is that laws which regulate persons or entities must give fair notice of conduct that is forbidden or required," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the seven-justice majority.
"[T]he Commission policy in place at the time of the broadcasts gave no notice to Fox or ABC that a fleeting expletive or a brief shot of nudity could be actionably indecent," he continued. Accordingly, the FCC violated the broadcasters' rights...
The Court took issue with the fact that the FCC did not fully articulate its rule against fleeting expletives until 2004 -- after the Fox and ABC incidents at issue. "A fundamental principle in our legal system is that laws which regulate persons or entities must give fair notice of conduct that is forbidden or required," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the seven-justice majority.
"[T]he Commission policy in place at the time of the broadcasts gave no notice to Fox or ABC that a fleeting expletive or a brief shot of nudity could be actionably indecent," he continued. Accordingly, the FCC violated the broadcasters' rights...
- 6/21/2012
- by Mike Sacks
- Aol TV.
The Supreme Court is set to hand down its decision over Obamacare as early as next week, and everybody's going to be talking about it (unless Beiber (Bieber?) breaks his eyebrow again). If you haven't been paying attention, or need a refresher course, here's a handy guide to faking your way through a convo about the Affordable Care Act, complete with a glossary, useful links, handy phrases, drink recommendations and warning lines that you need to make for the exit.
Topic: Did Liberals Intimidate The Supreme Court?
Read:
Lobbying The Supreme Court, Balkanization. Money lines:
One thing's pretty clear: John Roberts isn't going to be affected by these articles. He knows his own mind. Maybe he's concerned about his reputation in history or the Court's legitimacy, maybe he isn't. But he's going to vote -- or has voted -- the way he thinks correct.
Are Liberals Trying to Intimidate John Roberts?...
Topic: Did Liberals Intimidate The Supreme Court?
Read:
Lobbying The Supreme Court, Balkanization. Money lines:
One thing's pretty clear: John Roberts isn't going to be affected by these articles. He knows his own mind. Maybe he's concerned about his reputation in history or the Court's legitimacy, maybe he isn't. But he's going to vote -- or has voted -- the way he thinks correct.
Are Liberals Trying to Intimidate John Roberts?...
- 6/15/2012
- by Evan McMurry
- Celebsology
The U.S. Supreme Court seemed disinclined during a hearing today to meddle with FCC rules governing decency on the public airwaves. The nation’s television networks seek to overturn a 1978 decision that upheld the FCC’s authority to regulate radio and television content, at least during the hours when children are likely to be watching or listening. For a long time following the 1978 ruling the FCC let slide without penalty occasional one-time uses of curse words. But following several awards shows with cursing celebrities in 2002 and 2003, the FCC toughened its policy. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York declared the FCC policy unconstitutionally vague. Chief Justice John Roberts, the only member of the court with young children, said “All we are asking for, what the government is asking for, is a few channels where … they are not going to hear the S-word, the F-word, they are not going to see nudity.
- 1/11/2012
- by THE DEADLINE TEAM
- Deadline TV
Washington -- "There's a bare buttock there, and there's a bare buttock here," said Seth Waxman, pointing up to the historical and mythical figures that line the friezes along the four high walls of the nation's highest courtroom.
Waxman, the former solicitor general who was representing ABC, argued Tuesday that the Supreme Court's marble-cut figures looked just like a series of statues televised during the 2008 Olympics' opening ceremonies, which some viewers complained violated Federal Communications Commission regulations against broadcast indecency.
With his fittingly visual stunt, Waxman was attempting to illustrate the unconstitutional sweep of the federal government's content restrictions on over-the-air television networks. But the justices, though entertained, appeared unconvinced.
The Supreme Court first stamped its approval on the FCC's indecency regulations in 1978, when it upheld an agency action against a radio station's mid-afternoon broadcast of comedian George Carlin's "Seven Dirty Words" routine. The Court reasoned that broadcast media's...
Waxman, the former solicitor general who was representing ABC, argued Tuesday that the Supreme Court's marble-cut figures looked just like a series of statues televised during the 2008 Olympics' opening ceremonies, which some viewers complained violated Federal Communications Commission regulations against broadcast indecency.
With his fittingly visual stunt, Waxman was attempting to illustrate the unconstitutional sweep of the federal government's content restrictions on over-the-air television networks. But the justices, though entertained, appeared unconvinced.
The Supreme Court first stamped its approval on the FCC's indecency regulations in 1978, when it upheld an agency action against a radio station's mid-afternoon broadcast of comedian George Carlin's "Seven Dirty Words" routine. The Court reasoned that broadcast media's...
- 1/11/2012
- by Mike Sacks
- Huffington Post
Washington -- "There's a bare buttock there, and there's a bare buttock here," said Seth Waxman, pointing up to the historical and mythical figures that line the friezes along the four high walls of the nation's highest courtroom.
Waxman, the former solicitor general who was representing ABC, argued Tuesday that the Supreme Court's marble-cut figures looked just like a series of statues televised during the 2008 Olympics' opening ceremonies, which some viewers complained violated Federal Communications Commission regulations against broadcast indecency.
With his fittingly visual stunt, Waxman was attempting to illustrate the unconstitutional sweep of the federal government's content restrictions on over-the-air television networks. But the justices, though entertained, appeared unconvinced.
The Supreme Court first stamped its approval on the FCC's indecency regulations in 1978, when it upheld an agency action against a radio station's mid-afternoon broadcast of comedian George Carlin's "Seven Dirty Words" routine. The Court reasoned that broadcast media's...
Waxman, the former solicitor general who was representing ABC, argued Tuesday that the Supreme Court's marble-cut figures looked just like a series of statues televised during the 2008 Olympics' opening ceremonies, which some viewers complained violated Federal Communications Commission regulations against broadcast indecency.
With his fittingly visual stunt, Waxman was attempting to illustrate the unconstitutional sweep of the federal government's content restrictions on over-the-air television networks. But the justices, though entertained, appeared unconvinced.
The Supreme Court first stamped its approval on the FCC's indecency regulations in 1978, when it upheld an agency action against a radio station's mid-afternoon broadcast of comedian George Carlin's "Seven Dirty Words" routine. The Court reasoned that broadcast media's...
- 1/11/2012
- by Mike Sacks
- Aol TV.
The U.S. Supreme Court is taking on the constitutionality of a proposed California law to ban the sale of video games to minors. The same Supreme Court where Chief Justice John Roberts asked the difference between email and a pager, and where Justice Antonin Scalia asked if "spicy little" texts could be printed out and sent in hard copy to buddies.
The gaming industry already polices the sale of mature video games via the ratings of the non-profit Entertainment Software Ratings Board (Esrb), which also levees fines on stores that are caught breaking the rules. That wasn't enough for California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. The case to legalize a stricter law (Schwarzenegger, Gov. of CA v. Entertainment Merchants Association, argument 08-1448) will be scheduled for the highest court's next session, which begins in October.
Game publishers are no strangers to the courtroom. The Entertainment Software Association (Esa) has successfully struck down...
The gaming industry already polices the sale of mature video games via the ratings of the non-profit Entertainment Software Ratings Board (Esrb), which also levees fines on stores that are caught breaking the rules. That wasn't enough for California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. The case to legalize a stricter law (Schwarzenegger, Gov. of CA v. Entertainment Merchants Association, argument 08-1448) will be scheduled for the highest court's next session, which begins in October.
Game publishers are no strangers to the courtroom. The Entertainment Software Association (Esa) has successfully struck down...
- 4/26/2010
- by Kevin Ohannessian
- Fast Company
IMDb.com, Inc. takes no responsibility for the content or accuracy of the above news articles, Tweets, or blog posts. This content is published for the entertainment of our users only. The news articles, Tweets, and blog posts do not represent IMDb's opinions nor can we guarantee that the reporting therein is completely factual. Please visit the source responsible for the item in question to report any concerns you may have regarding content or accuracy.