Summary: Disney and ABC file lawsuit in U.S. District Court Washington FCC ordered early license reviews for eight ABC stations Lawsuit alleges Trump administration retaliation and First Amendment violations   Disney and its ABC unit sued the Federal Communications Commission on Aug. 18 to block an early review of licenses for eight ABC stations, arguing the Trump administration is trying to punish the network over its broadcast content. President Trump has ​repeatedly urged broadcasters ⁠to drop comedy or news programs he dislikes or which have been critical, pressing the FCC on numerous occasions to revoke ABC's licenses. In a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, Disney said the FCC was seeking to coerce and retaliate against "a network that refuses to bow to the administration's demands". Disney and ABC asked the court to quickly issue a temporary restraining order halting the license renewal proceedings and preventing the FCC from scheduling a hearing. The company said the public comment period ended earlier this month and the FCC could act at any time. The lawsuit alleges the administration is violating the company's First Amendment free speech rights. "Again and again, the administration has attacked ABC's speech — the stories its journalists report and the viewpoints its network programs air," the lawsuit said. The White House did not immediately comment. FCC Chair Brendan Carr, who did ​not immediately comment on Aug. 18, ordered the reviews in April even though the stations' license renewals were not scheduled to be ​considered before October 2028. The FCC had not ordered an early review in more than 50 years before April. The reviews were ordered a day after Trump urged ABC to fire late-night ​host Jimmy Kimmel. Broadcast stations need FCC licenses to use public airwaves. While license revocations are ​extremely rare, critics say the ​threat of losing a license ⁠can pressure broadcasters and raise concerns about government interference in editorial and programming decisions. Networks have broad First Amendment protections over programming choices. Trump called in November for the FCC to revoke ABC's licenses after he criticized an ABC News correspondent for asking ⁠Saudi Arabia's ​crown prince about the 2018 killing of a Washington Post columnist, in ​a question he described as "insubordinate." The FCC is also investigating ABC daytime talk show "The View," which discusses U.S. politics, after saying it may be subject to federal ​rules requiring broadcasters to provide equal opportunities to political candidates. (Reporting by David Shepardson; Editing by Susan Fenton and Mark Potter)

Summary: Darren Zhou reported to FBI by OpenAI for murder threats Zhou charged with aggravated stalking and written threats Circuit Judge Scott Suskauer sentenced Zhou to probation A South Palm Beach man turned to ChatGPT to plot the rape and murder of his ex-girlfriend. OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT, reported a 25-year-old Florida man to the FBI after he shared detailed plans to rape and murder his ex-girlfriend. "I'm gonna kill her by the end of this month," Darren Zhou told the chatbot, his messages preserved in court records. "If I can't have her then nobody can." Investigators say Zhou, a since-fired Goldman Sachs analyst living near Donald Trump's Palm Beach estate, turned to ChatGPT in March to discuss his recent breakup with a girlfriend of six months. He recounted her hobbies, the places she frequented, his jealousy of the men around her, and his desire to get back together. OpenAI's policies say a small team of people may review ChatGPT interactions when the company detects that a user plans to harm others. In serious cases, the company may send a tip to law enforcement. ChatGPT conversations have become evidence in numerous court cases, but fewer examples exist of a user's activity being reported to police by the company. Investigators say Zhou's messages quickly turned to threats of rape, murder and murder-suicide. Federal agents turned over two months of Zhou's chat logs to the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office in May, by which point Zhou's targets had grown to include the young woman's family. A deputy who reviewed the logs — which included only Zhou's messages, not ChatGPT's responses — said they weren't "vague emotional outbursts" but instead showed a pattern of rehearsal and planning. Deputies performed a welfare check on the girlfriend, a 21-year-old from Lake Worth Beach. She said she had broken up with Zhou over his "erratic, jealous and controlling behavior," and did so over the phone because she feared how he would react. Since the breakup, the woman said Zhou dogged her with calls, texts and social media messages, pressing her about comments that a man left on her TikTok videos. He accused her of moving on quickly and ignored her repeated requests that he not contact her again. Investigators say Zhou continued to call and text his ex from various app-generated phone numbers. She took screenshots of the messages, many of which were harassing, insulting, sexual and threatening. Armed with Zhou's messages to the AI and to his ex, deputies arrested him in May. He spent two days in the Palm Beach County jail before posting $100,000 bail. Assistant State Attorney Ana Cuskova charged him in June with aggravated stalking, written threats to kill, and illegal use of a cellphone, felonies punishable by up to 25 years in prison. Zhou pleaded guilty to all three on Aug. 13 after negotiating a deal with Cuskova that spared him both from prison and a felony conviction. Circuit Judge Scott Suskauer, speaking from the bench, said he only accepted the deal because Zhou's ex-girlfriend had approved it. In accordance with the agreement, the judge withheld adjudication and sentenced Zhou to eight years of probation, during which he must abide by a slew of restrictions. He pointed to the fact that Zhou graduated magna cum laude from Northeastern University in Boston and had no prior criminal record. This article originally appeared on Palm Beach Post: “Florida man told ChatGPT he'd murder his ex. OpenAI alerted the FBI” Reporting by Hannah Phillips, Palm Beach Post / Palm Beach Post

Summary: Vice Chancellor Travis Laster denies injunction on pepper spray use Trial to assess constitutionality of decontamination policies ACLU represents plaintiffs challenging Delaware Department of Correction A lawsuit claiming that the Delaware Department of Correction routinely leaves subdued prisoners to marinate in high-concentration pepper spray will go to trial in the coming months, a judge ruled on Aug. 11. The lawsuit filed in May claims that Delaware prison officers fail to decontaminate inmates subjected to powerful, law enforcement-grade pepper spray, and that that failure violates a provision of Delaware's constitution barring cruel punishment. The lawsuit is unique as it seeks policy and practice change in the prisons, rather than monetary damages, and is being litigated through Delaware's Court of Chancery, the state's nationally renowned forum for business disputes. It was brought by attorneys for the local chapter of the ACLU on behalf of people locked up by the state who claim they were sprayed and not allowed to clean themselves, in some cases for days. Officers in the department use so-called OC spray — short for oleoresin capsicum — hundreds of times per year in state prisons. In interviews over the years, prisoners have said the spray, which is more powerful than civilian pepper spray, is deployed unnecessarily and recklessly and causes suffering long after a prisoner is subdued. The use of such spray is not at issue, but instead, what happens after. Attorneys for the plaintiff prisoners asked the Chancery Court to issue an injunction barring use of pepper spray in state prisons until correction officials show they are properly decontaminating the subdued targets of the spray. But a recent ruling by Vice Chancellor Travis Laster denied the injunction request because of the necessity of pepper spray for "maintaining order" in state prisons. "If correction officers could not use OC, they would have to resort to the weapons of the past, like police batons, nightsticks, and truncheons," Laster wrote. While the preliminary injunction was rejected, Laster ordered the parties to prepare for a trial in the coming months on the constitutionality of the prisons' practice as it relates to decontamination. In ordering the trial, Laster's 136-page opinion treads new legal ground for prison litigation in the state and creates a test for whether a condition of confinement violates the state constitution's bar on cruel punishment. A condition fails the test when it exposes a prisoner to an "objectively significant risk of harm" that isn't required to serve the prison's interest in "incapacitation, deterrence or rehabilitation," the opinion states. He wrote that the plaintiffs have shown it is reasonably likely that not facilitating decontamination creates that risk of harm. For emphasis, he also singled out reported instances when sprayed prisoners were subjected to strip searches in which they were required to touch their mouths and genital areas. He added that the potential long-term health effects of OC spray also show a risk of irreparable harm. At trial, the plaintiffs will have to prove that failing to decontaminate prisoners violates the cruel punishment clause and that the relevant policy, which the department put in place after the lawsuit was filed, is constitutionally inadequate. Laster noted the plaintiffs have already pointed to "gaps" in the policy, including the failure to address decontamination and strip searches, and doesn't address aspects that the comparable federal prisons' policy includes. "Determining whether these issues warrant a declaratory judgment or targeted mandatory injunctive relief will require a trial and expert testimony," Laster wrote. This article originally appeared on Delaware News Journal: “Trial set in novel challenge to Delaware prison pepper spray practices” Reporting by Xerxes Wilson, Delaware News Journal / Delaware News Journal