Actress Jane Fonda has been compared to conspiracy theorist Alex Jones over resurfaced comments that she made about abortion.

Fonda said “murder” was a way to fight back against the Supreme Court‘s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade during an appearance ABC’s The View in March.

Social-media users called for Fonda to pay a fine, posting that her remarks were directly linked to the deadly mass shooting at an elementary school in Nashville, Tennessee.

Audrey Hales, 28, opened fire at Covenant School, a private Christian school, on Monday, killing three children and three adults. Police shot Hales dead on site and said officers were still investigating the motive behind the mass shooting.

Monday’s shooting in Nashville was the 13th school shooting since January 1, and the 129th mass shooting in 2023, according to the Gun Violence Archive (GVA). While there is no agreed definition, the GVA says a mass shooting is four or more people shot or killed in an incident, excluding the shooter.

Police identified the victims as Evelyn Dieckhaus, Hallie Scruggs and William Kinney, all 9 years old. The adults killed were Cynthia Peak, Mike Hill, both 61, and Katherine Koonce, 60, who was the head of Covenant School.

Fonda appeared on The View talk show alongside her Grace and Frankie co-star Lily Tomlin. She was asked about the Supreme Court’s June 2022 decision to overturn the nearly 50-year-old Roe v. Wade legislation. This had protected a pregnant woman’s right to abortion.

Fonda told the panel: “We have experienced many decades now of having agency over our body of being able to determine when and how many children we have… We know what that’s done for our lives. We’re not going back. I don’t care what the laws are. We’re not going back to this.”

Fonda was also asked what other alternatives there were to protesting the ruling in the streets. The resurfaced video of her appearance on The View was published to Twitter and has had more than 20 million views.

“Well, I’ve thought of murder,” Fonda told co-host Joy Behar, who said that it was a joke.

But, since the clip resurfaced, social-media users have posted that Fonda should be held responsible for the Nashville shooting.

“Jane Fonda has blood on her hands for the terror in Nashville. Her rhetoric are pushing a narrative that it’s okay to murder those you disagree with,” tweeted political YouTuber MAGS.

Social-media strategist Chuck Callesto added: “FLASHBACK: Jane Fonda suggests people should ‘MURDER’ pro life Christians.. WORDS HAVE CONSEQUENCES..”

And 2020 GOP senate nominee Lauren Witzke wrote: “Jane Fonda and The View supported the idea of murdering Christian Pro-Lifers this month. They giggled like the wretched hyenas they are. Now that they have blood on their hands, do you think we will hear apologies?”

However, some people called for Fonda to pay damages for her comments and compared her to Infowars host Jones.

The conspiracy theorist was found to have defamed families of the victims of 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School mass shooting. A court ordered him to pay more than $1 billion in damages to the 15 plaintiffs.

While Jones did not incite violence with his comments, he was sued by the families after he spouted conspiracy theories on Infowars that the Sandy Hook shooting was a hoax. Jones also said that the grieving parents were actors paid by the gun-control movement.

“If Alex Jones was guilty of $1B – then Fonda is at least $5B. Equality,” wrote one person on Reddit.

But another pointed out: “I mean, she didn’t ‘encourage women to murder pro-life christians.’ Nothing about Christianity was mentioned and she didn’t specifically call out women to go do anything. She was just saying she will not listen if laws were to take away abortion rights and when asked if she had any other suggestion, she said the word ‘murder.'”

Other people on the Reddit thread also questioned whether a tangible link between Fonda’s comments and the Nashville shooting could be made.

“Should Jane have said what she said? No of course not. It was hateful, careless, divisive and inflammatory. But Jane Fonda is not responsible for this woman doing what she did. That woman had a choice—Fonda did not personally force her, coerce her or brainwash her into killing those people,” one person wrote.

“And even if this woman comes out and screams from the roof tops she did it because Jane Fonda told her to—that does not mean the woman should have obeyed. The crime lies in this woman’s actions not what other people say.”

Original Article

A song by Miley Cyrus and Dolly Parton has been banned from the setlist of an elementary school summer concert, causing a bit of an uproar.

Now, some of Miley Cyrus’ songs are known to be more than a little bit raunchy and risqué, particularly during the ‘Bangerz’ period of her career.

But Dolly?

Dolly Parton is universally loved and universally accepted, she doesn’t go in for controversial lyrics really, just solid country classics and wholesome themes.

The song in particular isn’t one of Miley’s tunes that has adult themes in it, either.

In fact, it’s a song about tolerance, respecting everyone’s individuality, and getting along with each other.

However, you’ll probably soon start to see why some people have taken against it.

Mum Sarah Schindler raised the issue with a local TV channel after her daughter Audrey came home from Hayer Elementary in Waukesha, Wisconsin buzzing because she was going to sing the song at the school concert.

However, last Wednesday the first-grade student came home disappointed because her song had been banned.

Her mum wasted no time getting in touch with the teacher and school district superintendent to ask what was going on.

It later turned out that the decision was made because the lyrics of the song could have been controversial.

It’s called ‘Rainbowland’, and features lyrics such as ‘wouldn’t it be nice to live in paradise, where we’re free to be exactly who we are’ and ‘let’s all dig down deep inside, brush the judgment and fear aside.’

Are you starting to see where we’re going here?

The 2017 song from Cyrus’ album Younger Now is thought by some to be a statement of allyship to the LGBTQ+ community, which – you’d have to imagine – is why some aren’t pleased with it.

Parton has said in the past that the song is supposed to give hope to people during their darker moments.

“It’s really about if we could love one another a little better or be a little kinder, be a little sweeter, we could live in rainbow land,” Parton told Taste of Country.

“It’s really just about dreaming and hoping that we could all do better. It’s a good song for the times right now.”

Audrey’s teacher Ms Tempel later took up the baton, tweeting the lyrics to the song, writing: “My first graders were so excited to sing Rainbowland for our spring concert but it has been vetoed by our administration. When will it end?”

Superintendent Jim Serbet later said that the song was dropped because of a specific policy.

He said: “It was determined that ‘Rainbowland’ could be perceived as controversial.”

Upon further questioning, he said the district had concerns about whether it was ‘appropriate for the age and maturity level of students’ as well as the ‘social or personal impacts’ on them.

Also on the summer concert list were songs like Louis Armstrong’s ‘What A Wonderful World’ and Kermit the Frog’s ‘The Rainbow Connection’.

That last one – also about rainbows, but obviously sung by a famous frog – stayed in.

Original Article

Prince Harry is one of those suing Associated Newspapers, the publisher of the Daily Mail, over alleged phone-tapping and other breaches of privacy.

The duke was seen at the High Court on Monday morning, while singer Sir Elton John, who is also involved in the legal proceedings, arrived at lunchtime.

The publisher has described the allegations as “preposterous smears”.

The duke, Sir Elton and actresses Sadie Frost and Liz Hurley are among the individuals who allege unlawful information gathering by the company, which also publishes the Mail on Sunday.

A four-day preliminary High Court hearing in London, starting on Monday, will consider legal arguments and a judge will decide whether the case will go any further. Associated Newspapers (ANL) is bidding to end the claims without trial.

Prince Harry’s appearance will be seen by many as a sign of his strength of feeling over his privacy and determination regarding the legal action.

Others taking part in the legal action include Sir Elton’s husband David Furnish, and Baroness Doreen Lawrence, the mother of Stephen Lawrence, who was murdered in a racist attack in 1993.

The group launched the legal action last year after becoming aware of “compelling and highly distressing evidence that they have been the victims of abhorrent criminal activity and gross breaches of privacy” by ANL, according to a statement by law firm Hamlins released in October 2022.

Court proceedings began with a bid by ANL’s lawyers to have certain reporting restrictions imposed in the case.

ANL’s lawyer Adrian Beltrami said in written submissions that the legal actions have been brought too late and are “stale”.

David Sherborne, the lawyer for the group of prominent individuals, argued that, in some cases, the “unlawful acts” continued “until 2018”.

Sherborne successfully represented Coleen Rooney at last year’s so-called Wagatha Christie trial.

The Duke of Sussex sat towards the back of the courtroom, occasionally taking notes in a small black notebook as legal arguments were made.

Frost sat two seats away from him.

When the legal action was announced in October, law firm Hamlins, which is representing Prince Harry and Frost, alleged that ANL’s activity included:

• “The hiring of private investigators to secretly place listening devices inside people’s cars and homes
• “The commissioning of individuals to surreptitiously listen into and record people’s live, private telephone calls whilst they were taking place
• “The payment of police officials, with corrupt links to private investigators, for inside, sensitive information
• “The impersonation of individuals to obtain medical information from private hospitals, clinics, and treatment centres by deception
• “The accessing of bank accounts, credit histories and financial transactions through illicit means and manipulation”

In a statement released at the time, the newspaper group said: “We utterly and unambiguously refute these preposterous smears which appear to be nothing more than a pre-planned and orchestrated attempt to drag the Mail titles into the phone hacking scandal concerning articles up to 30 years old.

“These unsubstantiated and highly defamatory claims – based on no credible evidence – appear to be simply a fishing expedition by claimants and their lawyers, some of whom have already pursued cases elsewhere.”

The duke’s appearance on Monday is believed to be the first time he has been back in the UK since the late Queen’s funeral in September.

His surprise return comes nearly three months after he publicised his troubled relationship with his father the King and brother the Prince of Wales in his controversial autobiography Spare.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex also released a Netflix documentary in December, titled Harry & Meghan.

The King was due to be away on Monday on the first official state visit of his reign, but the trip to France was cancelled due to rioting over pension reforms.

He is due to leave for a state visit to Germany on Wednesday morning. Buckingham Palace said he was not in Windsor or London on Monday.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have been asked to vacate their UK home, Frogmore Cottage on the Windsor estate, in a move sanctioned by the King.

The duke is also taking legal action against the Home Office over security arrangements when he is in the UK, raising questions about his own security provisions during this visit.

Original Article