[NEWS] 121130 JYJ’s Kim Junsu Says, “This Was A Battle Against SM, Not TVXQ”
JYJ’s Kim Junsu recently opened up about his group’s exclusive contract nullification lawsuit.
Kim Junsu met with reporters on the 29th at a hotel in Essen, Germany and when asked about the possibilities of TVXQ getting back together now that JYJ’s lawsuit with their former agency SM Entertainment has ended after three years and four months, he stated, “I lament the fact that I’m not able to introduce myself as a member of TVXQ.” Though it wasn’t a direct answer, it seems as though even he sees the chances of TVXQ getting back together again to be low.
Kim Junsu stated, “I, too, find this situation to be unfortunate because I entered the entertainment industry and started out as a singer through TVXQ,” and “Though the situation is unfortunate and regrettable, the title of ‘TVXQ’ will always remain in my heart and I believe that other people, and not only myself, will remember and never forget the five years that I performed as a member of TVXQ.”
He continued to add, “Nothing will ever be as memorable and fill me with joy than if I could stand on stage again as ‘TVXQ’ one day.”
Kim Junsu didn’t hide his affection for TVXQ as he said, “We were fighting a battle against our company (SM Entertainment) and their unlawful practices; it wasn’t that we wanted to throw away our title of ‘TVXQ’ or leave ‘TVXQ’.”
He feels the same way about the name that introduced him to the world, ‘Xiah’. Kim Junsu stated, “When I perform in musicals, I use my real name of Kim Junsu. Regardless of what name I use, I give people my all to repay them for remembering me and coming to see me. But I started out as ‘Xiah’ and I would like to keep performing under that name as a singer.”
Though Kim Junsu made his debut and became famous as TVXQ’s Xiah Junsu, he has no longer been able to use that stage name since beginning his lawsuit against SM Entertainment.
When he released his first solo album in May, he released it under the name ‘XIA’, which was his name ‘XIAH’ from his TVXQ days without an ‘H’.
Source: [star mk]
Translated & Shared by: dongbangdata.net
NDAA: The Most Important Lawsuit in American History that No One is Talking About
libertyblitzkrieg.comDespite a mainstream media blackout on the topic, the alternative media is abuzz with this week’s hearing on the constitutionality of the clearly unconstitutional NDAA. In case you don’t remember, section 1021 of the NDAA, which Obama signed into law on December 31 of last year, allows the government to lock up U.S. citizens indefinitely without a trial. At the time of signing, Obama penned a pathetic letter to many of his outraged supporters where he basically said he signed it but he won’t use it. Thanks pal!
In any event, the Administration is showing its true colors by appealing an injunction that judge Katherine Forrest issued against it in May. The injunction was in response to the lawsuit filed by Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Chris Hedges and others. While the NDAA clearly vaporizes the 5th and 6th Amendments of the Constitution, I believe the real target is the 1st Amendment. By having a law on the books that allows the government to arbitrarily lock anyone up and throw away the key, the government is actually trying to instill enough fear in people that they self-censor speech and become too afraid to criticize the criminal elite political and economic oligarchy.
A silencing lawsuit
speakforyourself.orgOkay. This seriously makes me angry.
From the link:
We were saddened and disappointed that PRC and Semantic Compaction filed a lawsuit against us, two speech language pathologists who have emphatically supported their mission that “everyone deserves a voice”.
We came to terms with their decision and actions over these past few months. We have taken all of the necessary and legal steps to defend the lawsuit and protect Speak for Yourself, the app that we created, and that hundreds of people who are unable to talk are using to communicate.
Unfortunately last week, Apple removed our App from the App Store under pressure from Semantic and Prentke Romich. Now our sadness and disappointment have turned to indignation. Speak For Yourself will continue to fight this baseless lawsuit and the obvious, and blatant interference with your fundamental right to a VOICE which is motivated solely by their desire to drive SFY out of existence. That will not happen. We have started our fight in the Court with a motion for an injunction against Semantic and PRC. You can read our court paper by clicking on this link. We will find a way to continue our support, promotion, sale, upgrade and training for this App through any means necessary. Stay tuned.
We want you, our current and prospective clients, your families, teachers, schools, and hospitals, to know that we believe in this App and the life-changing impact it has had on so many lives. We will continue the fight because we are ethically and morally bound to do everything within our capability and skill level according to ASHA, to make “effective communication, a human right, accessible and achievable for all.” That vision remains at the heart of Speak for Yourself – this VOICE will not be silenced.
Basically, Apple removed this app- effectively silencing the people who use it for communication- before the court case was decided. Because a big company told them to.
Another link that has resources for people to contact- http://niederfamily.blogspot.com/2012/06/silencing-of-maya.html
Quote from that link, with a personal perspective:
Maya can speak to us, clearly, for the first time in her life. We are hanging on her every word. We’ve learned that she loves talking about the days of the week, is weirdly interested in the weather, and likes to pretend that her toy princesses are driving the bus to school (sometimes) and to work (other times). This app has not only allowed her to communicate her needs, but her thoughts as well. It’s given us the gift of getting to know our child on a totally different level. I’ve been so busy embracing this new reality and celebrating that I kind of forgot that there was an ongoing lawsuit.
and
To get a little less impartial, I also don’t understand how Prentke Romich could think that this was a reasonable, or ethical, move to make. PRC is a 46 year old company whose entire client population is comprised of children and adults who are unable to speak. Their motto (prominently displayed atop their Facebook page) is “We Believe Everyone Deserves A Voice.” How can they reconcile their mission statement with their strategic removal of Speak for Yourself from the market, effectively blocking access to new nonverbal users and potentially causing the removal of the app from the current users who are using it as their only voice?
My daughter cannot speak without this app.
She cannot ask us questions. She cannot tell us that she’s tired, or that she wants yogurt for lunch. She cannot tell her daddy that she loves him.
No one should have the power to take this away from her.
What would happen if we lost SfY? I have no idea. As I’ve explained before, we have tried other communication apps and didn’t find any that were a good match for Maya. Interestingly, we also carefully considered purchasing a communication device from PRC, and met with one of their representatives in November, nine weeks before a post on my Facebook wall introduced me to SfY (and seven weeks before it even existed in the iTunes store). We examined PRC’s devices and were disappointed to see that they weren’t a good fit for Maya. For us, this wasn’t an issue of an expensive device versus a “cheap” app. This was an issue of an ineffective device (for Maya) versus an app that she understood and embraced immediately. The only app, the only system, that she immediately adopted as her own way of communicating.
This app is her only voice.
The fact that my daughter’s ability to speak is becoming a casualty of a patent battle between two businesses is beyond my comprehension. This is a patent issue, a monetary issue, a legal issue, a business issue. This should be handled in a business vs. business way, within the court system. PRC’s decision to fight for the removal of this app from the iTunes store isn’t just an aggressive move against Speak for Yourself, it’s an attack on my child, the other children using this app, and the children who are ready to begin using this app but now cannot.
PLEASE REBLOG THIS, SPREAD THE WORD, CONTACT THE PEOPLE LISTED IN THE SECOND LINK.
Please, help fight against the silencing.
Judge dismisses racial discrimination suit against "The Bachelor"
thefrisky.comJessica Wakeman of “The Frisky” writes:
A Tennessee judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by two black men who were suing ABC over alleged racial discrimination on “The Bachelor,” essentially deciding that casting is protected by the First Amendment. ABC has denied their practices are discriminatory, despite the fact its crop of “Bachelor” bros are the whitest crop of white dudes this side of a Tea Party rally.
The plaintiffs, Christopher Johnson and Nathaniel Claybrooks, had both auditioned for “The Bachelor” in 2011 and were not cast. But instead of skulking away with their tail between their legs, they sued. The men argued that casting a television show is essentially hiring employees and that ABC had a pattern of hiring only white employees for that particular position. There has never been a non-white “Bachelor” or “Bachelorette,” despite the occasional non-white member of the dating pool; one theory was that the show shied away from appearing to promote interracial dating. ABC argued — and the judge disagreed — that casting was part of the creative development of the show and was that protected by the First Amendment. NPR’s culture blog Monkey See has a good, concise breakdown of the legalese:
What ABC successfully argued in this case (which could be appealed, by the way) is that it has a First Amendment right to exclude people of color as a creative decision in the process of casting shows. The judge isn’t saying it happened and ABC isn’t admitting it happened, but the judge is agreeing with ABC that even if it happened, it’s not illegal, and that’s why the case was dismissed.
That’s a sticky wicket: both sides are right in their respective justification in their arguments. I do think “artists” (if you will indulge me for a second and call “The Bachelor” producers/casting director “artists”) have to have their First Amendment protections and should not be told how to create their art. In her motion to dismiss, the judge pointed out that networks market their programming towards different groups based on gender, race or sexual orientation, such as BET and LOGO. “[T]he content of any television show that does not have a sufficiently diverse cast would be or would have been subject to court scrutiny,” the judge wrote. Don’t worry, MTV. You will not be forced to cast smart people on “Jersey Shore.”
But I also think that ABC is completely full of shit. Essentially the judge said, which ABC isn’t disputing, that this show is a “white people show.” It has not just happened this way that “Bachelor”/”Bachelorette” cast members are predominantly Caucasian. To that end, it’s also not a coincidence that everyone cast on the show is (to the best of my knowledge — feel free to chime in, Frisky Chief “Bachelor”-ologist Amelia McDonell-Parry) attractive by conventional standards, slim, and able-bodied. They are casting these people as desirable for a reason — not because reality TV shows are a reflection of reality, but because they are often a reflection of mainstream cultural prejudices of who is worthy of love and who isn’t. It’s a shame that these guys lost their case not just because they’re missing out on all those chicks in bikinis and hot tub action, but because TV networks now have a precedent for continuing to reinforce those prejudices in their reality show casting.
The full ruling is available online here and worth a read. One fundamental question explored by the judge is how can we legally determine when a role should be color-specific versus colorblind? Unfortunately, people in Hollywood and people who support Hollywood’s exclusion of PoC will use this ruling to support how things currently are. This ruling holds Hollywood to a different standard than other fields of employment. Here, freedom of speech trumps equal opportunity employment laws.
