Make a comment Name (required) Mail (required) (not be published) Website Home of the Week: Unique Pasadena Home Located on Madeline Drive, Pasadena Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked * CITY NEWS SERVICE/STAFF REPORT Pasadena Will Allow Vaccinated People to Go Without Masks in Most Settings Starting on Tuesday Business News Newcomer Dan Henry Leads Pasadena-Based Green Dot Into Its Next Chapter By ANDY VITALICIO Published on Wednesday, May 13, 2020 | 1:32 pm Subscribe 59 recommended0 commentsShareShareTweetSharePin it STAFF REPORT Pasadena’s ‘626 Day’ Aims to Celebrate City, Boost Local Economy Business News Herbeauty9 Of The Best Family Friendly Dog BreedsHerbeautyHerbeautyHerbeautyWeird Types Of Massage Not Everyone Dares To TryHerbeautyHerbeautyHerbeautyFinding The Right Type Of Workout For You According AstrologyHerbeautyHerbeautyHerbeautyHe Is Totally In Love With You If He Does These 7 ThingsHerbeautyHerbeautyHerbeautyFollow This Summer Most Popular Celeb Beauty TrendHerbeautyHerbeautyHerbeautyThe Most Heartwarming Moments Between Father And DaughterHerbeautyHerbeauty Top of the News More Cool Stuff faithfernandez More » ShareTweetShare on Google+Pin on PinterestSend with WhatsApp,Darrel Done BusinessVirtual Schools PasadenaHomes Solve Community/Gov/Pub SafetyPASADENA EVENTS & ACTIVITIES CALENDARClick here for Movie Showtimes STAFF REPORT First Heatwave Expected Next Week Get our daily Pasadena newspaper in your email box. Free.Get all the latest Pasadena news, more than 10 fresh stories daily, 7 days a week at 7 a.m. Dan Henry, Green Dot’s Chief Executive Officer and President. (Photo: Business Wire)Dan Henry, the new CEO and President of Pasadena-based financial technology and bank holding company Green Dot Corporation, said the company will shift to a strategy of relying more on its banking service and less on promoting its traditional products to increase profits, a report in the banking and financial services publication American Banker said.Henry came on board in March to “lead Green Dot into its next chapter,” as former CEO William I. Jacobs said.Jacobs formerly served as interim CEO and continues to serve as Chairman of the Board of Directors.At Green Dot’s first-quarter earnings call Monday, Henry said Green Dot has traditionally launched a new product every year, and then promoted that product. He indicated he wants to reduce marketing spending and instead offer a more consistent product set through its bank subsidiary that customers could use for a longer period of time.“I think what you’re going to see is kind of a philosophical change in the approach in terms of consumer marketing,” Henry said.In the call, Henry said he has been spending the past few weeks since coming on board speaking with the company’s leadership, although most of the engagements have been virtual due to work-from-home requirements.He said he and the leadership team have been working aggressively to eliminate unnecessary expenses, and so far have reduced planned SG&A (selling, general and administrative) expense by close to $30 million for the remainder of the year.“These reductions in expenses will not impact our ability to serve our partners and customers more while we expense reduction hinder our future growth,” Henry said. “Consequently, when we all emerge from this current economic situation, Green Dot will be a leaner, more efficient operation.”Henry made sure Green Dot is not selling its banking subsidiary, Green Dot Bank – also called GoBank and Bonneville Bank – and instead use the asset more to help boost profits.“The intention is to be focused on delivering a consumer banking product that will create lasting value for the mass market consumer in this country,” he said. “We will take full advantage of our bank charter, retail distribution and direct-to-consumer capabilities. I believe the reason we are seeing such an abundance of so-called challenger banks pop up is because both NetSpend and Green Dot squandered their advantages in this space over the past five years. We will be working hard in the coming years to regain that lost ground.”During the call, Green Dot reported first-quarter net income of $46.8 million, down from $64 million in the same period last year. Henry said the company was fortunate to have banked the first quarter before the COVID-19 emergency hit the economy.Green Dot shares have climbed by more than 50 percent since March when Henry was announced to be coming on board as CEO. Early Tuesday, they were trading at $35 per share, up about 14 percent from Monday’s closing, American Banker said in the report. Community News EVENTS & ENTERTAINMENT | FOOD & DRINK | THE ARTS | REAL ESTATE | HOME & GARDEN | WELLNESS | SOCIAL SCENE | GETAWAYS | PARENTS & KIDS Community News
ColumnsDemocratising The Cyber Laws Gauri Thampi. P2 Dec 2020 11:15 PMShare This – xAccording to Professor Ronald Dworkin, freedom for hate speech or group defamation is the price we pay for enforcing the laws that the haters and defamers oppose. His argument which appeared as a foreword in the book ‘Extreme Speech and Democracy’ came to be referred to as the ‘Legitimacy theory’. It focuses on the significance of free and unrestricted speech in ensuring the…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginAccording to Professor Ronald Dworkin, freedom for hate speech or group defamation is the price we pay for enforcing the laws that the haters and defamers oppose. His argument which appeared as a foreword in the book ‘Extreme Speech and Democracy’ came to be referred to as the ‘Legitimacy theory’. It focuses on the significance of free and unrestricted speech in ensuring the legitimacy of democracy. The expression of opposition must be allowed no matter how foul or vicious the expression is, as otherwise no legitimacy will attach to the laws enacted over their opposition. Therefore, the legitimacy theory does not support a legislation curbing speech or hate speech for that matter. As ruthless and impracticable as this sounds, the underlying argument which denotes the implication of free speech in the democracy is commendable. Contrary to this position, how can legitimacy of a democracy be upheld in a scenario where hate mongering speech is targeting the minorities or the vulnerable? The legitimacy theory still argues that the harm envisaged by restricting hate speech is more than the harm resulting from the hate speech. While enacting a legislation against online hate speech it is this balance of harm that must be kept as the scale. In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India while striking down Section 66A of the IT Act, the apex court held that “where no reasonable standards are laid down to define guilt in a Section which creates an offense, and where no clear guidance is given to either law abiding citizens or to authorities and courts, a section which creates an offense and which is vague must be struck down as being arbitrary and unreasonable.” The recent attempt to amend the Kerala Police Act by inserting ‘section 118A’ , though withdrawn quickly owing to backlash from public domain, was also filled with the very same but revamped vagueness and arbitrariness of section 66A. These are instances where a legislation restricting free speech went appallingly wrong. As much as free speech must be encouraged and allowed to occupy spaces unhampered by government interference, violence in the online space is increasing now more than ever. We are at the age where social media can be equipped to influence elections, host terrorists and carry out full-fledged wars. This pressure urges the government and law enforcement agencies to push for the formulation of new laws to cater to the dynamic cybercrimes. It is true to state that repealing of section 66A has created a large gap leaving a section of offences in the cyber space unaddressed. This has left several victims claimless against their abusers. However, even in this period a plethora of unwarranted charges have still been framed against innocents to satisfy political vendetta using the existing sections in the IPC and IT Act. Journalist Prashant Kanojia was arrested over his allegedly ‘objectionable tweet’ invoking nine sections of the IPC along with section 66 of IT Act, and jailed for a period of 2 months without bail. On the other hand, the police did not act on the complaint of artist Bhagyalakshmi and two other women against a sexist/misogynist/hate mongering cyber bully. When a complaint was finally registered it was under minor bailable provisions of the IPC which triggered the aggrieved women to retaliate against the accused in their own terms. Incongruously, the women were later denied bail by the lower court for taking law into their own hands. It seems ironical that the lacunae in laws are only operating against the victims or persons whom a hate speech legislation proposes to protect. But to serve the state’s political interests by framing fabricated charges the existing laws are more than sufficient. As both the above instances create victims, it shows us the overlapping rights and wrongs of the legitimacy theory. Therefore, while legislating a cyber law to curb hate speech the framework must clearly stipulate the speech it does not seek to curb before laying down its objectives of restricting free speech. Specifying the limits, objectives and boundaries of the legislation, clearly defining the offences, its ingredients, and applicability are points to be considered before coming up with cyber laws restricting speech. Another vaguely worded provision complementing the existing diaspora of widely misused laws will be a threat to the constitutional ethos. It is also pertinent to understand and address the fundamental issues of the cyberspace which creates a hostile environment. For example, it is the anonymity on internet which often triggers herd mentality and wakes the inherent character deficiencies in human beings. In an article published in 2016, Prof. Walter Isaacson had proposed a future model of internet which can create a ‘voluntary’ system of verified identification and authentication which is capable of addressing these issues of anonymity. It is undebatable that cyber space has already become our present and future, and any solution that seeks to wholly address the issues on cyber space must start from its roots. Therefore, a holistic approach must be adopted for creating safe spaces online with the cooperation of different stakeholders. Creating a constitutionally sound legislation upholding the international standards of human rights is one of its important aspects. Such an approach will not only facilitate the free flow of communication, but also strengthen the legitimacy of democracy by encouraging the non-interference of government in free speech and expression.Views are personal.(Author is a practicing Lawyer at the Kerala High Court)Next Story
Other Sports WWE Hell In A Cell 2019: Seth Rollins vs ‘The Fiend’ Bray Wyatt Ends In No Contest, Charlotte Flair New Women’s ChampionBy admin on September 19, 2020
For all the Latest Sports News News, Other Sports News, Download News Nation Android and iOS Mobile Apps. New Delhi: The 2019 Hell In A Cell pay-per-view featured some epic clashes which involved the likes of Seth Rollins, ‘The Fiend’ Bray Wyatt, Becky Lynch and Charlotte Flair. However, the outcome of one of the matches between Rollins and Wyatt left a bitter taste in the mouth of some fans at Sacramento, California as the match ended in a no-contest. Many fans could be heard shouting ‘Refund’ but the match produced so many twists and tales that in the end, Wyatt stood tall after brutalising Rollins. Apart from the three major events, there were other matches that served up interesting situations. Natalya defeated Lacey Evans while Randy Orton got the better of Mustafa Ali. In the tag team clashes, the Kabuki Warriors featuring Kairi Sane and Asuka defeated Alexa Bliss and Nikki Cross while the team of Braun Strowman and Viking Raiders defeated The OC which included former champion AJ Styles. King of the Ring winner Baron Corbin suffered a defeat against Shorty Gable.It was time for the main event with Lynch taking on Banks. It was an epic contest with Banks injuring Lynch’s arm. There were chairs, kendo sticks and each wrestler brutalised the other. Banks hit the meteora twice but Lynch kicked out on both occasions. Lynch, dubbed ‘The Man’, hit a top-rope Becksploder on Banks into some chairs that were lying in the ring. Lynch then locked in the Dis-Arm-Her, the Armbar and Banks tapped out.Also Read | Wrestlemania 35: Becky Lynch steals the show, Kofi Kingston overcomes the oddsThe feud between Flair and Bayley had been going on for some months. This was a tough match with Flair dominating and Bayley having her moments. Bayley’s early aggression saw Flair bleeding from the mouth but when she locked the figure eight on Bayley, Flair was crowned the Women’s Champion for the 10th time. Also Read | Seth Rollins, Becky Lynch win in WWE Royal Rumble; Brock Lesnar and Ronda Rousey dominateWyatt’s character of The Fiend has grasped the attention of the WWE Universe. His sneak attack on Strowman and Kane leading upto Hell In A Cell was a great build-up to the match. This was a match of finishing moves and the surrounding was made eerie, with the match being played in almost total darkness with only a red light being flashed. Seth Rollins employed the Stomp many times only for Wyatt to come back up. In desperation, Rollins unleashed a brutal onslaught on Wyatt that left the fans in shock. He placed a chair on Wyatt and struck it with a ladder, tool box and a sledgehammer. The shot by the sledgehammer forced the referee to call a no result as Wyatt was attended to.The fans were absolutely unhappy with the result but when Rollins started taunting Wyatt, The Fiend rose up and unleased a Sister Abigail at ringside as well as on the concrete floor. With blood oozing out of Rollins’ mouth, Wyatt used the Mandible Claw and stood menacingly on top of Rollins. The outcome of this match did not please the fans, but this match has ushered a new rivalry which can revive the WWE.