Stay updated with breaking news from Artistic vision. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
>> you think about it, because will be a plan to call to soon, if a college finds out that we lied about everything on our application, they will immediately kick us out, but he lied about everything and he will get to say that were being held to a higher standard of integrity than politicians in this country. >> before we leave the high school, we ask our panel of students this question. >> you're a constituent of congressman santos. if you could say one thing to him, what would you say tim? >> i just want to know why he felt the need to do all this? >> what would you say to him? >> if you really want to represent artistic, and you care about the voters and the people, you should resign? >> what would you say? >> resigned to keep democracy working properly. >> apologized and resigned now, it's enough. >> for the good at the constituents of new york's third, resign. >> you? >> for your district and for your party, resign. you? >> step down. >> gary joins us now. it's another a big class, we could spark kids there. >> various markets, a lot of disillusioned kids, but that does not mean that they're apathetic. what they tell us is that this inspires them. it's a lesson that when it comes time to vote for the first time in 2024, when they
up for those that i love, but i also care about people, i'm compassionate, empathetic. we're kind of mixing up this concept that if somehow a man shows kindness or empathy or consideration for others, that's somehow not masculine, and that is just not okay. that's just not true. >> a lesson emhoff says he learned growing up in new jersey from watching his father michael. >> he's just such a strong role model for me, and he was a woman shoe designer, and he was strong and tough, but sensitive and creative and artistic, yet, you know, we're talking about masculinity, i think my father is a masculine man, and he just taught me like it's okay to, you know, focus on your family, be there for your family no matter what. >> do you ever catch yourself thinking what would a woman do in this situation? >> not what a woman would do but
>> he's just such a strong role model for me, and he was a woman shoe designer, and he was strong and tough, but sensitive and creative and artistic, yet, you know, we're talking about masculinity, i think my father is a masculine man, and he just taught me like it's okay to, you know, focus on your family, be there for your family no matter what. >> do you ever catch yourself thinking what would a woman do in this situation? >> not what a woman would do, but, like, how would a woman be perceived or covered? i'm very mindful of that. i'm very mindful of like the fact i'm sitting here with you and the fact that sometimes we get attention for doing things that others have done and maybe didn't get the same attention. >> there was a great line that seth meyers used when your wife was on. >> my husband, doug and i, the first second gentleman of the united states. [ cheers and applause ]
the trailer features a well—known actress who does not appear in the film, and it�*s understandable that a court would deem that notjust these two but other viewers of the trailer might be misled. and do you think this will therefore have implications for trailers and the industry as a whole in the future? 100%. now, universal, the studio, argued that the trailer was an artistic, expressive work. it should be protected free speech under the first amendment in the united states. but the court ruled it�*s a trailer is a commercial, not only speech but commercial speech, and that there was a likelihood that others may be misled, or at least was arguable, if an actress is featured in the trailer and then doesn�*t appear in the film. it�*s important to note too that although that $5 million has been claimed on behalf of this class of viewers that were misled, the film itself grossed a reported $15a million at the box office alone, not including streaming and other revenue. so, to put in context, it�*s not an outrageous amount.
i've been speaking to entertainment lawyer domenic romano, founder and managing partner of romano law, and asked him whether he was surprised a judge would allow this suit for two fans to be heard. well, first of all, it's not on behalf of the two fans. it's on behalf of a class of other viewers of the film that were deceived. so i'm not surprised that the judge allowed this suit to go on. the trailer features a well—known actress who does not appear in the film, and it's understandable that a court would deem that not just these two but other viewers of the trailer might be misled. and do you think this will therefore have implications for trailers and the industry as a whole in the future? 100%. now, universal, the studio, argued that the trailer was an artistic, expressive work and should be protected free speech under the first amendment in the united states. but the court ruled that a trailer is a commercial, not only speech but commercial speech, and that there was a likelihood that others may be misled, or at least was arguable, if an actor is featured in the trailer and then doesn't appear in the film. it's important to note too that although that $5 million has
thank you forjoining us. $5 million for two fans? have you seen anything like this before? well, first of all, on behalf of the two fans, it is on behalf of a class of other viewers of the film but were deceived as i�*m not surprised the judge allowed this to go on. the trailerfeatures the judge allowed this to go on. the trailer features a well—known actress who does not appear in the film and it�*s understandable that the court would deem that lodges these two but other viewers of the trailer may be misled. do you think this _ trailer may be misled. do you think this will _ trailer may be misled. do you think this will therefore - trailer may be misled. do you think this will therefore have | think this will therefore have implications for trailers and the industry as a whole in the future? ' :: :: ' the industry as a whole in the future? ' :: :: , ,., ., future? 100%. universal argued this trailer— future? 10096. universal argued this trailer was _ future? 10096. universal argued this trailer was an _ future? 10096. universal argued this trailer was an artistic - this trailer was an artistic expressive work and should be protected free speech under the first amendment in the united states but the court ruled it�*s not, trailer is a commercial, not, trailer is a commercial, not only speech but commercial speech and there was a likelihood that others may be
suit to go on. the trailer features a well—known actress who does not appear in the film, and it's understandable that a court would deem that not just these two but other viewers of the trailer might be misled. and do you think this will therefore have implications for trailers and the industry as a whole in the future? 100%. now, universal, the studio, argued that the trailer was an artistic, expressive work and should be protected free speech under the first amendment in the united states. but the court ruled that a trailer is a commercial, not only speech but commercial speech, and that there was a likelihood that others may be misled, or at least was arguable, if an actor is featured in the trailer and then doesn't appear in the film. it's important to note too that although that $5 million has been claimed on behalf of this class of viewers that were misled, the film itself grossed a reported $154 million at the box office alone, not including streaming and other revenue.
LAUSANNE, Dec. 22 (Xinhua) -- Male athletes are allowed to compete in the artistic swimming competitions at the Paris 2024 Olympic Games, World Aquatics announc