"Spider-Man: Into The Spider-Verse" - The Trailer Has Landed!

"Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse" - Poster

Sony Pictures Animation today launched the first full trailer for "Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse" and confirmed the vocal cast joining Shameik Moore as he takes on the role of Miles Morales. 

⏩ The film will be released in theaters nationwide on December 14, 2018. 

Jake Johnson is joining the cast as Miles' reluctant mentor, Peter Parker, with Liev Schreiber playing the larger-than-life crime lord Kingpin, Hailee Steinfeld playing the spunky, free-spirited Spider-Gwen, Oscar winner Mahershala Ali as Miles' influential uncle Aaron, Brian Tyree Henry playing Miles' father Jefferson, Luna Lauren Velez as Miles' mother Rio, and Lily Tomlin as Aunt May. 

Peter Parker serves as Miles Morales' reluctant mentor in "Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse"

Commenting on the announcement, producers Phil Lord and Christopher Millersaid, "We are lucky to have such an amazing cast of funny, genuine creative souls to populate the Spider-verse. They have generous minds and great big hearts. And they have very talented throats. Which is where their delightful voices come from." 

Lord and Miller continued: "We can't wait for the world to see Miles Morales on the big screen. He's such a fun and exciting new character, and telling his story through a revolutionary visual style makes for a totally fresh cinematic experience that, if we may say so, is freaking amazing."

The Trailer:

Phil Lord and Christopher Miller, the creative minds behind The Lego Movie and 21 Jump Street, bring their unique talents to a fresh vision of a different Spider-Man Universe, with a groundbreaking visual style that's the first of its kind. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse introduces Brooklyn teen Miles Morales, and the limitless possibilities of the Spider-Verse, where more than one can wear the mask. 

Hailee Steinfeld voices the role of Spider-Gwen in "Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse."

Directed by Bob Persichetti, Peter Ramsey, and Rodney Rothman, the screenplay is by Phil Lord. The film is produced, in association with Marvel, by Avi Arad, Amy Pascal, Phil Lord, Christopher Miller, and Christina Steinberg.

Shameik Moore voices the role of Miles Morales in "Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse."

SOURCE: Sony Pictures Animation

Jurassic World: Can We Really Resurrect A Dinosaur?

Resurrecting dinosaurs might not be so easy. (pixabay/azdude, CC BY-SA)

This summer, the fifth instalment of the Jurassic Park franchise will be on the big screen, reinforcing a love of dinosaurs that has been with many of us since childhood. There is something awe inspiring about the biggest, fiercest, and “deadest” creatures that have ever walked the planet. But the films have had an additional benefit – they have sparked an interest in dinosaur DNA.

The “Mr DNA” sequence in the original movie is a great piece of science communication and the concept of extracting DNA from the bodies of “dino” blood-engorged mosquitoes is an outstanding piece of fiction. It is, however, just fiction.

⏩ Video-clip: Jurassic Park’s solution for resurrecting dinosaurs.

Quite by chance, we’ve recently identified the overall genomic structure of dinosaurs. The genomic structure is the way that genes are arranged on chromosomes in each species. Although individual animals from the same species will have a different DNA sequence, the overall genomic structure is species-specific.

We began by working out the most likely genomic structure of the bird-turtle ancestor, before tracing any changes that occurred from then to the present day. This lineage includes the emergence of dinosaurs and pterosaurs ~240 million years ago, passing through the theropod dinosaurs (whose members include T.rex and Velociraptor) and ends with birds.

Despite us not making any claims to have extracted dino DNA, the question that seems to be on most people’s lips is “does this bring us closer to a real Jurassic Park?” The answer is an emphatic “no”, and here’s why.

First, the idea that there is intact dino DNA contained within blood-sucking insects preserved in amber just doesn’t add up. Prehistoric mosquitoes containing Dino blood have been found, but any dino DNA contained within them has long since degraded. Neanderthal and woolly mammoth DNA has been successfully isolated, but dino DNA is just too old. The oldest DNA ever found is around one million years old, but for dino DNA we would need to go back at least 66m years, so realistically we’re not even close.

Second, even if we could extract dino DNA, it would be chopped up into millions of tiny pieces and we would have little clue as to how these pieces should be organised. It would be like trying to do the world’s hardest jigsaw puzzle with no idea what the picture looks like or whether there are any missing pieces.

In Jurassic Park, the scientists find these missing pieces and fill them with frog DNA, but this wouldn’t give you a dinosaur, it would give you a hybrid or a “frogosaur”. These bits of frog DNA could have all kinds of negative effects on the developing embryo. It would also be infinitely more sensible to use bird rather than frog DNA as they are more closely related (but it still wouldn’t work).

A Velociraptor can’t be resurrected in a chicken egg. (Fred Wierum/Wikimedia, CC BY)

Third, the idea that all you need is a strand of DNA and, hey presto, you can recreate a whole animal is, again, science fiction. DNA is a starting point but the development of the animal inside the egg is an intricate “dance” of genes switching on and off at the right time with a series of environmental cues.

In short, you need the perfect dino egg and all the complex chemistry contained within it. In the book, they generate artificial eggs, in the films they use ostrich eggs. Neither would work, you can’t put chicken DNA inside an ostrich egg and hope to get a chicken (people have tried). The same would be true of a Velociraptor.

And this is before we even consider legislature, planning permission, protest groups and the effect on the ecosystem.

So we can’t resurrect a dinosaur, but…
Here’s the thing: dinosaurs never became extinct. Quite the contrary, they are among us right now. Birds did not evolve from dinosaurs, birds are not closely related to dinosaurs. Birds are dinosaurs.

Dinosaurs (including birds) are the survivors of at least four extinction events, emerging each time in more diverse, weird and wonderful forms. One key element of our paper is that we theorise that their ability to do this is facilitated by their genome structure. We discovered that birds and most non-avian dinosaurs had a lot of chromosomes (packages of DNA). Having so many allows animals to generate variation, the driver of natural selection.

Nevertheless, and it is a long shot, it may be possible in future to use Jurassic Park technology to help undo some of the harm that humans have caused. Mankind has seen the extinction of well-known avian dinosaurs such as the dodo and the passenger pigeon. Recovery of DNA that is a only few hundred years old from these birds is a far more realistic proposition. It may also be that eggs from closely related living species might just be good enough. In the right conditions we may be able to use them to resurrect some of these species from extinction.

About Today's Contributors:
Darren Griffin, Professor of Genetics, University of Kent and Rebecca O'Connor, Postdoctoral research associate, University of Kent

This article was originally published on The Conversation. 

Jurassic Park/World Related Videos:

Jurassic Park/World Related Stories:

• From Universal Pictures Home Entertainment: Jurassic Park 25th Anniversary Collection
• World Premiere of Jurassic World in Concert

Four Important Lessons About Family That We Learned From "American Dad!"

The Smith Family. (TM and (C) 2017 Fox and its related entities. All rights reserved.)

The Smith Family. (TM and (C) 2017 Fox and its related entities. All rights reserved.)

American Dad!, though bearing similarities to its sister shows Family Guy and The Cleveland Show, has definitely made a name for itself in its own right in pop culture. With a focus on creating relatively more relevant stories and relatable characters, American Dad! creates hilarious and sometimes surreal episodes that still have heart and can connect with its viewers.

To date, American Dad! has released almost 250 episodes and has been nominated for three Primetime Emmy Awards and two Annie Awards. It has also been named top television series by the American Society of Composer, Authors and Publishers.

⏩ The accolades the show has earned is unsurprising given its large fan base, many of whom have connected and taken lessons from the show. 

Here are some of those takeaways:

1. Keep Your Family Close

This may be an obvious one, but if there's any lesson that viewers take from American Dad!, it's that family is the most important thing to prioritize. 

While the Smith family has more than its fair share of trouble and adventures, they always stick together in the end, and you can see each and every character in their house practice this somewhere along the course of the show.

2. We have to accept our family's flaws in order to love them

In American Dad!, each member of the family is incredibly flawed in their own, often absurd, ways. 

• Stan can be incredibly rash and drastic, sometimes bringing home the extreme ways of dealing with things from his CIA job. 
• Francine is oftentimes a nag and can become scornful. 
• Both Hayley and Steve have been very inconsiderate, ungrateful, and selfish in the course of the series. 

While the members of the Smith family have certainly embarrassed each other and irritated each other, at the end of the day, they get through it not by trying to change their family members but accepting them for who they are.

3. You don't always have to agree

One of the most central conflicts in American Dad! is the opposite political views of Hayley from the rest of her family. It's often the root of many arguments and problems that have occurred in the show and is a running theme across the series. 

While it certainly gets brought up and tackled by the characters, Hayley and her family still have each others' backs despite not necessarily seeing eye to eye on everything.

4. Sometimes, you can choose your family

Not everyone in the main cast of American Dad! is related by blood. While they all certainly live in the same household, Klauss, Roger, and Jeff aren't at all related to the Smiths. 

In Klauss' and Roger's case, they're not even the same species. However, it doesn't stop them from actively choosing to treat each other like family. 

It teaches viewers that anyone can be like family as long as you treat them with love and respect.

"American Dad!" - Stan Smith 

SOURCE: FOX+

5 Things That Might Be Different If "Family Guy" Was Set in the Philippines

The Griffin Family. (TM and (C) 2017 Fox and its related entities. All rights reserved.)

Made up of Peter, Lois, Meg, Chris, Stewie, and Brian, the Griffin family and their antics have continued to entertain audiences for almost 20 years in the satirical TV show Family Guy. 

With 16 seasons, over 300 episodes and counting, the show has created a legacy with its loyal fan base. It has also earned several accolades, including 12 Primetime Emmy nominations and 11 Annie Awards.

Instantly one of the most recognizable and iconic cartoon shows of the past two decades, Family Guy, which is available on FOX+, has been re-imagined into plenty of forms of fan art and tributes. 

From fan fiction, to recreations and adaptations, and even cosplay, it's clear that Family Guy has become more than just a TV show. 

Here, the show tries to re-imagine the Griffin family set in the Philippines, and all the things that might be different in Family Guy:

1. The Griffins would be The Gregorios

Besides the alliteration, this re-imagined last name wasn't just an arbitrary choice. "Griffin" is the 114th most common surname in America, while "Gregorio" is the 114th most common surname in the Philippines. 

Call it destiny or chance, but Gregorio is definitely more fitting for a family living in Metro Manila.

2. They would live in Marikina Village

In Family Guy, the Griffins live in a fairly suburban village in Rhode Island. While Metro Manila is very urban, there are definitely places that are great Filipino translations for the suburban residence the Griffins have on the show. 

Perhaps Marikina would be a great suburban paradise for this TV family to settle down in, should they find themselves in Manila.

3. Stewie would be the center of attention of all the titas at family reunions

All Filipinos know that there's nothing titas love more than doting over their pamangkins (or newphews/nieces) and being an audience to all their talents. 

Stewie would definitely be one of the more vocal and intelligent pamangkins, and it wouldn't be hard to imagine titas asking him to tout his spelling and language abilities at reunions.

4. Lois would be a typical Filipina mom and head of the household

In many ways, Lois already embodies your usual Filipina mom -- doting, on top of all the household things, and the voice of reason for when things start to look too rowdy or sketchy. 

Perhaps the Filipina version of her would love to cook menudo, wear dusters around the house, and constantly say to Meg and Chris: "Kakakompyuter mo kasi!"

5. Brian could be a different breed -- maybe even a mix!

It could be argued that mixed breeds, lovingly called askals, are more common as pets in the Philippines as opposed to purebreds. Given this, it might not be too much of a stretch to imagine Brian, who is originally a white lab, as a lovable askal. 

He'll definitely still be Stewie's best friend.

Brian Griffin (Image via LoupDargent.info) 

SOURCE: FOX+

Falsehoods, Sandy Hook and suing Alex Jones

Funeral services took place for Benjamin Andrew Wheeler, one of the students killed in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, while a hearse with another shooting victim drives by. (AP Photo/Julio Cortez)

Alex Jones, a well-known media personality, falsely claims you were an accomplice in faking the murder of your own child.

You sue him.

It seems such a case should be easy to win, given the nature of those statements. But defamation law does not provide an equally easy answer.

I am a legal scholar who studies the intersection between the First Amendment and online speech. A court battle now being fought illustrates the difficulties in winning such a case, and how current law needs modernizing in order to address the needs of the aggrieved and the ways we talk about public tragedies.

Sandy Hook: Fact and fiction
Here’s the background: On Dec. 14, 2012, gunman Adam Lanza shot and killed 20 6- and 7-year-olds at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.

For several years afterward, Infowars host and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones questioned whether the shooting was faked by the Obama White House and co-conspirators in an effort to undermine gun rights in the United States.

Among other statements, Jones claimed that the shooting was a “giant hoax,” was “staged” and had “inside job written all over it.” He claimed that traumatized families and students were “lying … actors” in front of a CNN blue screen during Anderson Cooper’s reporting from Connecticut. Jones compared the scene at the school to a Disney World hologram.

Sandy Hook parents were also harassed online and in person as “hoaxers” and “crisis actors” by members of Jones’ audience.

Alex Jones speaks during a political rally. (REUTERS/Lucas Jackson)

In 2017, a reporter on Jones’s show claimed that one of the Sandy Hook parents was lying when he said he held his son and saw a bullet hole in his son’s head, since the slain students were identified via photographs. In fact, the coroner released the victims’ bodies to their families for funeral purposes, so the parent’s claim was true.

So this spring, several of the parents of children who died in the shooting at Sandy Hook sued Jones for defamation.

Narrow standards for defamation
For hundreds of years, the parents’ defamation claim would have been a simple one decided under state law. Jones’ false allegations that the parents lied would have been deemed harmful to the parents’ reputations; a jury would assume money damages were appropriate; and Jones would have had to pay.

However, that changed in 1964 when the U.S. Supreme Court, in New York Times v. Sullivan, decided that the federal Constitution’s First Amendment required state courts to strike a different balance.

Post-Sullivan, the First Amendment, which generally protects speakers from government interference, now had a significant role to play in defamation law, which has long given individuals the right to sue based on oral and written statements that harmed their reputation.

In Sullivan, the court decided that where the plaintiff claiming she was defamed by a defendant’s statement was a “public official” – a politician or other high-level government officer – state defamation law had to be more lenient in order to protect the public’s right to vigorously discuss such people, even where statements in that discussion turn out to be false.

The court carved out this leeway by changing the standard of proof that the public official plaintiff had to show as part of her defamation claim.

Instead of simply showing that the defamatory statement was false, or showing that a reasonable speaker would have known the statement was false – which is the standard that still applies to private people in many states – the plaintiff had to show that the defendant either deliberately lied about her or seriously doubted the statement was true and said it anyway.

That standard is known as “actual malice.”

In other words, by protecting individuals’ rights to speak freely about people in power, the court promoted the democratic process at the expense of possible harms to the reputations of public officials.

Ten years later, in Gertz v. Welch, the court extended the actual malice standard to a new class of defamation plaintiffs. The court called them “limited-purpose public figures” – otherwise private people who had voluntarily inserted themselves into controversies that were the subject of public discussion.

These people, concluded the court, should, like public officials, also have to show actual malice in defamation suits. That’s because they assume the risk, the court said, of being talked about negatively and even falsely when they enter public debates “in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved.”

But what if a person didn’t choose to be a public figure? Should they still be treated as one when they sued a speaker for defamation?

The court said that “hypothetically, it may be possible for someone to become a public figure through no purposeful action of his own, but the instances of truly involuntary public figures must be exceedingly rare.”

Count the families of the Sandy Hook dead among those rare involuntary public figures.

Technology complicates defamation
As I’ve written before, the internet has changed defamation law in deep and meaningful ways.

It has allowed prospective defamation plaintiffs to defend their reputations without resorting to lawsuits, by responding to stories about them online. Conversely, it has also helped authors correct disputed or false facts about story subjects more quickly and easily.

But the internet has also undermined the court’s statement in Gertz that the problem of an involuntary limited-purpose public figure was unlikely to occur.

By making public so much of daily life that was formerly private, the internet has made involuntary public figures out of many people who have suffered notable tragedies through no fault or risky behavior of their own.

Mark Barden and Jennifer Hensel hold photos of their respective children Daniel Barden, 6, and Avielle Richman, 6, both victims of the Sandy Hook shooting. (REUTERS/ Michelle McLoughlin)

All of which brings us back to Alex Jones.

In his legal defense, Jones will likely argue that the plaintiff-parents are limited-purpose public figures - that they have inserted themselves into the larger controversy around gun rights in the U.S. - and they should therefore have to prove that his statements about them were made with knowledge that they were false.

True, many Sandy Hook parents became vocal participants in the anti-gun movement in the wake of the tragedy. Several have sued the maker of the gun used in the shooting. Others have organized online to try and prevent future similar attacks, and gone online to call for greater gun control.

But making such individuals prove actual malice in their defamation suit against Jones – a much tougher standard to prove – would get the First Amendment backwards. It would stifle important responses to disastrous events in individuals’ private lives.

It would encourage individuals to take the tragedies that happen to them and swallow them silently.

No one would have volunteered for the kind of attention that the Sandy Hook parents have received. But if a court were to find that they were public figures because of that attention, then future parents might not speak out at all, which would do significant harm to the marketplace of ideas that the First Amendment is intended to promote.

Parents have the right to decide whether to grieve their children publicly or privately, and online or off. The degree of fault they might have to show in a defamation claim should not play any role in that decision.

About Today's Contributor:
Enrique Armijo, Associate Professor of Law and Associate Dean of Academic Affairs, Elon University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. 

#NOMAChangingCourse - Reflections on New Orleans Histories

Skylar Fein, Remember the Upstairs Lounge, 2008 (Image courtesy of the Artist)

The New Orleans Museum of Art (NOMA) presents Changing Course: Reflections on New Orleans Histories, an exhibition that celebrates the New Orleans Tricentennial by bringing together a group of seven contemporary art projects that focus on forgotten or marginalized histories of the city. 

Projects by artists Katrina Andry, Willie Birch, Lesley Dill, L. Kasimu Harris, Skylar Fein, The Everyday Projects, and The Propeller Group each shed light on the past while also looking towards the future, returning to defining moments in New Orleans' history that continue to frame art and life in the city today. 

⏩ Changing Course will be on view at NOMA June 29 through September 16, 2018.

"In New Orleans' Tricentennial year, this exhibition will allow visitors to reflect on how our city's histories have shaped our responses to present-day issues and concerns, while considering how the past can help spur evolution and change," said Susan Taylor, NOMA's Montine McDaniel Freeman Director. "During a year of celebration and remembrance, NOMA invites the city to consider how the act of commemoration can also be a form of forward thinking."

• Artist Skylar Fein's installation Remember the Upstairs Lounge (2008) commemorates a 1973 arson at the Upstairs Lounge, a popular gay bar in the French Quarter, while also continuing the conversation around ongoing violence against LGBTQ communities, locally and nationally. 

• The Propeller Group's video The Living Need Light, The Dead Need Music (2014) offers a powerful meditation on the cyclical nature of time and history, drawing points of connection between the cultural traditions of New Orleans' vibrant Vietnamese community and the fantastical funeral traditions and rituals of South Vietnam. 

• Lesley Dill's Hell Hell Hell / Heaven Heaven Heaven: Encountering Sister Gertrude Morgan (2010) pays tribute to the vital legacy of visionary New Orleans artist, preacher and poet Sister Gertrude Morgan. 

• A new installation of woodblock prints by Katrina Andry addresses questions of racial and economic disparity and the uneven urban development in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, and also considers the impact that past infrastructure projects, such as the construction of I-10, had on historically African American neighborhoods in the city. 

• L. Kasimu Harris' War on the Benighted (ongoing) chronicles his work with New Orleans schoolchildren, which has resulted in photographs that place African American history at the center of a visual narrative that confronts stereotypes of youth and race and question the history of public education in New Orleans.

⏩ Two additional project components offer spaces for community reflection, serving as the beginning of a conversation about how these New Orleans histories impact different communities across the city: 

• Willie Birch's installation will simultaneously address specific historical events and the development of a contemporary art-centered community he is creating in New Orleans' Seventh Ward. Presenting new multi-media works confronts this area's relationship with its slave-holding past while also documenting the creation of a more inclusive community today. 

• The Everyday Projects, a collective of photojournalists who use social media to combat clichéd representations of communities worldwide, will bring their Pulitzer Center-sponsored curriculum to New Orleans with #EverydayNewOrleans, encouraging participants to use photography to share their unique perspectives on life in their neighborhoods throughout Greater New Orleans.

Changing Course: Reflections on New Orleans Histories is organized by the New Orleans Museum of Art and co-curated by Russell Lord, Freeman Family Curator of Photographs, Prints, and Drawings; Katie Pfohl, Curator of Modern and Contemporary Art; Brian Piper, The Andrew W. Mellon Curatorial Fellow for Photography; and Allison Young, The Andrew W. Mellon Curatorial Fellow for Modern and Contemporary Art.

Exhibition Programming: 

Exhibition-related programs will include curator-and-artist-led noontime talks featuring Willie Birch, Katrina Andry, Kasimu Harris, and Skylar Fein, gallery tours, artist perspectives, a lecture by Leslie Dill, an #EverydayNewOrleans round table, and Picturing Us, a five-documentary film series exploring the people and places that make New Orleans home.

Additional Information:  

Facebook and Instagram: @noma1910 
Hashtag: #nomachangingcourse
Website: noma.org

Changing Course: Reflections on New Orleans Histories (Image via noma.org)

About NOMA and the Besthoff Sculpture Garden:

The New Orleans Museum of Art, founded in 1910 by Isaac Delgado, houses nearly 40,000 art objects encompassing 5,000 years of world art. 

Works from the permanent collection, along with continuously changing special exhibitions, are on view in the museum's 46 galleries Fridays from 10 AM to 9 PM; Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays from 10 AM to 6 PM; Saturdays from 10 AM to 5 PM and Sundays from 11 AM to 5 PM. 

⏩ NOMA offers docent-guided tours at 1 PM every Tuesday - Sunday. 

The adjoining Sydney and Walda Besthoff Sculpture Garden features work by over 60 artists, including several of the 20th century's master sculptors. The Sculpture Garden is open seven days a week: 9 AM to 6 PM. 

The New Orleans Museum of Art and the Besthoff Sculpture Garden are fully accessible to handicapped visitors and wheelchairs are available from the front desk. 

⏩ For more information about NOMA, call (504) 658-4100 or visit noma.org. 

Museum admission is free on Wednesdays for Louisiana residents, courtesy of The Helis Foundation. Teenagers (ages 13-19) receive free admission every day through the end of the year, courtesy of The Helis Foundation.  

SOURCE: New Orleans Museum of Art

Mario Sorrenti Shoots Supermodel Anja Rubik For PORTER's Ocean-themed Summer Escape Issue Dedicated To Protecting Our Blue Planet

Anja Rubik wears dress by YSL photographed by Mario Sorrenti for PORTER.

For its Summer Escape issue, PORTER is proud to partner with Parley for the Oceans –  a global collaboration network pioneering a new approach to environmentalism – as well as acclaimed photographer Mario Sorrenti and cover star Anja Rubik to highlight the plastic crisis facing our blue planet.

For a second year, the title dedicates an entire issue to championing Content + Commerce + Cause this time exploring the beauty and fragility of the oceans. 

In a breath-taking 63-page portfolio shot by Sorrenti on Parley's island in the Maldives, extraordinary fashion imagery is juxtaposed with Sorrenti's powerful documentary photography illustrating the stark reality and impact of plastic pollution upon our seas. 

⏩ The accompanying essays take a deep dive into the urgent environmental catastrophe facing our planet, including a moving Q&A with world-renowned oceanographer Sylvia Earle; and highlight ways we can all affect change.

"Did you know every second breath we take comes from the oceans?" says supermodel and Parley ambassador Rubik, in addition to guest editing the issue.

PORTER will continue to support this partnership with a two-month campaign across both Porter.com and all social channels – asking readers to get involved by taking a pledge to reduce their personal plastic use by making a plastic sacrifice and sharing the hashtag #plasticnotfantastic. 

"The fashion community can drive the movement – we can create trends," says Rubik.

PORTER's editor-in-chief Lucy Yeomans says: "We are so proud to partner with Parley for the Oceans and use our editorial platform to highlight this cause and be able to engage the powerful medium of fashion to protect our oceans."

⏩ For full interview buy PORTER's Summer Escape Issue, on sale June 1

SOURCE: NET-A-PORTER

CAIR Applauds ABC's Cancellation of 'Roseanne' Following Roseanne Barr's Islamophobic, Racist Tweet

Roseanne Barr (image via BBC)

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation's largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, today applauded ABC's decision to cancel the "Roseanne" sitcom after the show's star Roseanne Barr posted a racist and Islamophobic tweet.

In a tweet posted Tuesday, Barr referred to Valerie Jarrett, a former adviser to President Barack Obama, as a "child" of the "Muslim Brotherhood" and "Planet of the Apes."

⏩ SEE: ABC Cancels 'Roseanne' Following Roseanne Barr's Racist Tweet Targeting Obama Adviser 

"We welcome the swift and appropriate action taken by ABC and hope it sends a message that the promotion of hatred and bigotry will not be accepted by our nation's entertainment industry," said CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad. "Ms. Barr has a First Amendment right to express her views, however Islamophobic or racist, but she does not have a constitutional right to a program on a national television network."

He noted that CAIR recently expressed appreciation for a "Roseanne" episode challenging Islamophobia. "Ms. Barr's tweet unfortunately does not express the inclusiveness and rejection of bigotry we saw in the episode on Islamophobia," said Awad.

⏩ ABC's 'Good Morning America' Quotes CAIR Director on 'Roseanne' Islamophobia Episode:

⏩ CAIR has reported an unprecedented spike in bigotry targeting American Muslims and members of other minority groups since the election of Donald Trump as president.

The Washington-based organization's recently-released 2018 Civil Rights Report, "Targeted," showed a 17 percent increase in bias-motivated incidents against American Muslims from 2016 to 2017, and a 15 percent increase in the number of anti-Muslim hate crimes in that same time period.

CAIR’s 2018 civil rights report (image via CAIR)

⏩ New CAIR Report: Trump's Muslim Bans Increased Anti-Muslim Discrimination, Violence

Community members are being urged to report any bias incidents to police and to CAIR's Civil Rights Department at 202-742-6420.

CAIR launched an app to share critical "know your rights" information and to simplify the process to report hate crimes and bias incidents. CAIR is urging American Muslims and members of other minority groups to download the app and utilize this resource to stay informed and empowered.

⏩ For a quick download of CAIR's civil rights app, click here

SOURCE: Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)

CAIR Related Stories:

• CAIR Calls for FEC and IRS Probes of Anti-Muslim Ads Backed by Trump Supporter and Targeting Voters in Swing States
• Video: CAIR Responds to Donald Trump's Anti-Muslim Retweets
• CAIR Calls on Feds to Probe Call to Violence Against U.S. Muslims at N.C. Meeting of Hate Groups