Latest news with #Tinker
Buzz Feed
21 hours ago
- Buzz Feed
12 MI6 Facts You Didn't Know But Definitely Do Now
Think MI6 is all tuxedos, fast cars, and shaken martinis? That's just the movie version. The real British intelligence service has a story that's far more surprising, and a lot less glamorous. From spy gadgets hidden in matchboxes to hacking terrorist magazines with cupcake recipes, these are the MI6 facts you probably never heard about… until now. The whole reason MI6 exists? Britain was paranoid about Germany in 1909. MI6 wasn't born out of slick spy missions or dramatic shootouts—it started with good old-fashioned paranoia. In 1909, Britain was convinced that Germany was plotting against them, so they secretly set up what would become MI6 to keep tabs on enemy activity, and let's just say… they've been watching ever since. The head of MI6 isn't called 'M' in real life, it's 'C', and they always use green ink. In the Bond universe, the boss goes by 'M.' But IRL? It's 'C.' That's short for Sir Mansfield Cumming, the very first chief of MI6, who used to sign all his notes with just the letter 'C' (in green ink, no less). The tradition stuck. Every MI6 head since has kept the title and the signature style—yes, they still write in green ink. Very on-brand for a secret agent, honestly. MI6 was a secret for decades, and wasn't officially acknowledged until 1994. MI6 has been around since 1909, but for most of its life, it was like the Voldemort of government departments—never officially named. Originally set up as the Secret Service Bureau, the agency operated entirely in the shadows. It wasn't until 1994—yes, the same year Friends premiered—that the British government publicly admitted MI6 even existed. Talk about a long game. There wasn't just MI6—at one point, there were 19 different MI departments. MI6 didn't always work alone. Back in the day, there were actually 19 different 'MI' branches doing everything from decoding messages to watching the skies. MI1 dealt with information management, MI2 focused on Russia and Scandinavia, MI4 handled aerial surveillance, and MI11 (weirdly enough) took on codebreaking. Over time, most of these departments either shut down or got folded into MI5 and MI6. So no, MI6 isn't just a spy movie thing—it's what's left after a major intelligence agency merger. MI6 HQ isn't just a building, it's basically a fortress. The MI6 headquarters in London is no ordinary office. With 25 types of glass, bombproof walls, and triple-glazed windows, it's built like a tank. Rumors say it even has a shooting range, rooms where eavesdropping is impossible, and a Faraday cage to block radio signals. James Bond could only dream. Some of the greatest spy novelists were actual spies. Yes, really. Before Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy became a classic Cold War thriller, its author, John le Carré was living the spy life for real. Born David Cornwell, he worked for MI6 but had to use a pen name—real agents weren't allowed to publish under their own identities. And le Carré wasn't alone. The Quiet American author Graham Greene was also with MI6. Meanwhile, Ian Fleming—the man behind James Bond—served in Naval Intelligence, which gave him all the material he needed to invent 007 (minus the gadgets and martinis, probably). The first MI6 chief had a wild way of testing recruits. It involved a knife and a wooden leg. Sir Mansfield Cumming, the original head of MI6, had a pretty unhinged method for screening potential agents. In the middle of an interview, he'd suddenly stab himself in the leg to see how the recruit reacted. Don't worry, it was a wooden leg. But if you flinched? You probably didn't make the cut. In 2011, MI6 swapped b*mb instructions with cupcake recipes, yes that happened. MI6 pulled off one of the sassiest cyber moves in spy history. In 2011, agents hacked into an online Al-Qaeda magazine and replaced its bomb-making instructions with… cupcake recipes. Instead of a step-by-step guide to explosives, readers found details for the best cupcakes in America. It was part sabotage, part bake sale, and 100% genius. Real MI6 gadgets existed, just don't expect exploding pens or laser watches. The spy gear wasn't all Hollywood-level madness, but it was real. While James Bond had grenade pens and magnetic watches, actual MI6 agents worked with gadgets that were a little more low-key (and way more practical). Think cameras hidden inside matchboxes, hollowed-out shaving brushes, and other everyday objects turned into tools for espionage. Less flashy, more sneaky. MI6's top spy almost lost his job because of a Facebook post. Back in 2009, the head of MI6—Sir John Sawers—nearly had his career derailed thanks to his wife's Facebook activity. She casually posted their home address, vacation photos, and even details about their kids' locations… all publicly visible. Not ideal for the UK's most secretive spy. The info was taken down eventually, but not before the headlines started flying. Women in early MI6 weren't exactly given spy gadgets; they were used as 'honey traps' or stuck taking notes. Back in the early days of MI6, women weren't sent on glamorous missions or handed briefcases full of gadgets. Instead, they were often used to seduce and compromise targets—what's known as a 'honey trap'—or assigned to secretarial work behind the scenes. It wasn't until much later that women began taking on actual intelligence roles and field assignments. And now? For the first time ever, MI6 has its female chief. Talk about a full-circle moment. MI6 helped train America's first spies, including the predecessor to the CIA. When the U.S. finally joined World War II, it didn't exactly have a seasoned spy agency ready to go. So MI6 stepped in. Britain's top-secret service helped train America's brand-new Office of Strategic Services (OSS)—aka the baby version of the CIA. That early collab laid the groundwork for one of the most enduring intelligence partnerships in the world. So the next time you watch a Bond movie, just remember, the real MI6 doesn't hand out grenade pens or jetpacks (at least not that we know of). From secret aliases and cupcake hacks to wooden leg interviews and green ink signatures, Britain's top spy agency is full of facts stranger than fiction. And now, with its first-ever female chief at the helm, MI6 is proving it knows how to keep secrets and shake things up.
Yahoo
28-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Can Schools Ban This 'There Are Only Two Genders' Shirt? Supreme Court Declines To Hear Free Speech Case
The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to hear a case from a minor whose Massachusetts middle school refused to let him wear a shirt that said "THERE ARE ONLY TWO GENDERS," reinvigorating the debate about how much latitude public schools have to restrict students' speech in the classroom. The plaintiff—a 12-year-old 7th grader at the time of the incident, identified as L.M. in the lawsuit—was booted from class in 2023 and sent home from Nichols Middle School in Middleborough, Massachusetts, after he refused to change clothes. When he came back wearing a shirt that said "THERE ARE CENSORED GENDERS"—the same shirt but with "CENSORED" written across a piece of tape—he was sent to meet with the principal, who said he could keep the shirt in his backpack or in the assistant principal's office. He obliged and returned to class. When L.M. first sued, alleging a First Amendment violation, Judge Indira Talwani of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled that the school likely acted within its rights and thus denied his request for a preliminary injunction. "School administrators were well within their discretion to conclude that the statement 'THERE ARE ONLY TWO GENDERS' may communicate that only two gender identities—male and female—are valid, and any others are invalid or nonexistent," she wrote, "and to conclude that students who identify differently, whether they do so openly or not, have a right to attend school without being confronted by messages attacking their identities." At the core of the case, and those like it, is Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, the 1969 Supreme Court precedent in which the justices ruled 7–2 it was unconstitutional when an Iowa school suspended students who wore black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War. "It can hardly be argued," wrote Justice Abe Fortas, "that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." Tinker, however, came with a caveat. Schools can seek to stymie expression that causes, or could potentially cause, a "substantial disruption," a test that courts have struggled with for decades. When the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit heard L.M.'s case next, this tension was at the center of the opinion. The shirt here was analogous to the Tinker armbands in that its message was expressed "passively, silently, and without mentioning any specific students," the judges wrote. But it diverged, the court said, in that it "assertedly demean[ed] characteristics of personal identity, such as race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation." (Jason Carroll, the assistant principal, said there was concern that L.M.'s shirt "would be disruptive and would cause students in the LGBTQ+ community to feel unsafe.") The court responded with a two-prong test it said was in line with Tinker. A school may censor passive expression if it "is reasonably interpreted to demean one of those characteristics of personal identity, given the common understanding that such characteristics are unalterable or otherwise deeply rooted" and "the demeaning message is reasonably forecasted to poison the educational atmosphere due to its serious negative psychological impact on students." It's ironic that the court would rely on the notion of a "common understanding" to buttress its decision when considering that a hefty majority—65 percent as of 2023—of American adults believe there are only two gender identities. It is not a particularly contentious point, despite it often being portrayed that way. That such a basic statement could be seen as too offensive—regardless of whether someone identifies as gender-nonconforming—is not an encouraging stance for any institution to take, much less one devoted to education. That is especially relevant here, however, as Nichols Middle School allowed students to challenge the idea that there are only two genders. You don't need to agree with the student's shirt to support his right to contribute to that conversation. The First Amendment protects unpopular speech, after all—something school administrators should understand, given that their position is, in reality, the unpopular one in society today. It's for that reason that, in dissent, Justice Samuel Alito said the school had violated the First Amendment's shield against viewpoint discrimination. "If a school sees fit to instruct students of a certain age on a social issue like LGBTQ+ rights or gender identity, then the school must tolerate dissenting student speech on those issues," he wrote. "If anything, viewpoint discrimination in the lower grades is more objectionable because young children are more impressionable and thus more susceptible to indoctrination." The post Can Schools Ban This 'There Are Only Two Genders' Shirt? Supreme Court Declines To Hear Free Speech Case appeared first on
Boston Globe
27-05-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Justices allow Middleborough school to bar student from wearing ‘Only Two Genders' shirt
The opinion illustrated a split among the members of the court's six-member conservative supermajority, said Justin Driver, a law professor at Yale University. Advertisement 'The dissent both illuminates and underscores a significant divide among the six Republican-appointed justices,' he said, 'with Alito and Thomas comfortable voicing positions that the other four would prefer to avoid.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The case involved a student identified in court papers as L.M. who tried to wear the shirt at Nichols Middle School in Middleborough in 2023. When students and a teacher complained, the principal told the student that he could not return to class unless he changed clothes. He refused and was sent home. Later, the student came to school wearing a T-shirt that this time said 'There Are CENSORED Genders.' He was told that was not permitted, either. Rather than missing more school, he changed clothes. His parents sued, saying the school's policy violated the First Amendment. They relied on a landmark 1969 Supreme Court decision, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, which held that public school students have First Amendment rights. In that case, students sought to wear black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. Advertisement Justice Abe Fortas, writing for the majority, said students do not 'shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.' But he added that disruptive speech could be punished. In the Massachusetts case, a federal trial judge ruled for the school, saying the student's shirts had invaded the rights of other students. The US Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit, in Boston, affirmed that ruling. Judge David J. Barron, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, said the school could ban messages that demean other students' deeply rooted characteristics in a way that poisons the educational atmosphere. Alito wrote that the 1st Circuit's approach was at odds with Tinker and violated the First Amendment's prohibition of viewpoint discrimination by the government. 'Like the black armbands in Tinker, L.M.'s shirts were a 'silent, passive expression of opinion, unaccompanied by any disorder or disturbance,'' he wrote, quoting from the decision. 'And just as in Tinker, some of L.M.'s classmates found his speech upsetting. Feeling upset, however, is an unavoidable part of living in our 'often disputatious' society, and Tinker made abundantly clear that the 'mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint' is no reason to thwart a student's speech.' Alito added that the Massachusetts school 'promotes the view that gender is a fluid construct' and should allow other perspectives. 'If anything, viewpoint discrimination in the lower grades is more objectionable because young children are more impressionable and thus more susceptible to indoctrination,' he wrote. Advertisement The court will soon decide a case on a related question: whether public schools in Maryland must allow parents with religious objections to withdraw their children from classes in which storybooks with LGBTQ+ themes are discussed. Driver said 'Justice Alito's emphasizing the dangers of 'indoctrination' of younger students could well preview a theme' in the Maryland case. In addition to joining Alito's dissent, Thomas, long a skeptic of minors' First Amendment rights, wrote separately to say he believed that Tinker should be overruled. 'But, unless and until this court revisits it, Tinker is binding precedent that lower courts must faithfully apply,' he wrote.
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Supreme Court declines to hear student's bid to wear ‘two genders' shirt to school
The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to hear a student's challenge to his school district blocking him from wearing a T-shirt to class that reads, 'There are only two genders.' Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, two of the court's leading conservatives, indicated they would've reviewed the student's case, saying the lower courts were distorting the First Amendment. 'If a school sees fit to instruct students of a certain age on a social issue like LGBTQ+ rights or gender identity, then the school must tolerate dissenting student speech on those issues,' wrote Alito, joined by Thomas. Lower courts held that the school's ban doesn't conflict with the Supreme Court's famous 1969 decision, Tinker v. Des Moines, that permitted students to wear armbands protesting the Vietnam War, ruling they don't 'shed their constitutional rights' when they enter 'the schoolhouse gate.' Christopher and Susan Morrison, the guardians of student L.M., who is not named in court filings because he is a minor, latched onto the precedent as they sued the Middleborough, Mass., school district in 2023 for declining to let the student wear the shirt, along with a second one that read, 'there are censored genders.' 'It gives schools a blank check to suppress unpopular political or religious views, allows censorship based on 'negative psychological impact' or ideological offense, rejects a public school's duty to inculcate tolerance, and lowers free-speech protection for expression that schools say implicates 'characteristics of personal identity' in an 'assertedly demeaning' way,' the lawsuit states. 'This flouts Tinker and turns the First Amendment on its head.' The student is represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian conservative legal powerhouse that frequently wins cases implicating gender and sexuality to the Supreme Court. The school district's attorneys said the group 'attempts to rewrite the facts' and doesn't grapple with affidavits submitted by school administrators at Nichols Middle School (NMS) that provide 'crucial context' justifying how the shirts interfere with other students' ability to concentrate. 'School administrators attested to the young age of NMS students, the severe mental health struggles of transgender and gender-nonconforming students (including suicidal ideation), and the then-interim principal's experience working with gender-nonconforming students who had been bullied in other districts and had harmed themselves or were hospitalized due to contemplated, or attempted, suicide,' the district wrote in court filings. Though the court turned away the petition, the justices have already agreed to hear a major case this term implicating transgender protections. The high court is weighing whether Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors amounts to unconstitutional sex discrimination, a ruling that stands to impact similar laws passed in roughly half the country by Republican-led state legislatures. A decision is expected by early summer. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Supreme Court declines to hear appeal from seventh grader who wore ‘two genders' shirt to school
The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to hear an appeal from a Massachusetts middle school student who was forced to remove a T-shirt that claimed 'there are only two genders.' Two conservative justices – Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas – dissented from the decision to not hear the case. So long as the appeals court's decision is on the books, Alito wrote, 'thousands of students will attend school without the full panoply of First Amendment rights. That alone is worth this court's attention.' Liam Morrison wore the shirt to Nichols Middle School in Middleborough, Massachusetts, in 2023 to 'share his view that gender and sex are identical.' School administrators asked him to remove it and, when he declined, sent him home for the day. Weeks later, he wore the same shirt but covered the words 'only two' with a piece of tape on which he wrote 'censored.' Morrison and his family sued the district in federal court, asserting a violation of his First Amendment rights. The district court ruled against him and the Boston-based 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that decision. In a landmark 1969 decision, Tinker v. Des Moines, the Supreme Court affirmed students' First Amendment rights at school, but the court qualified those rights, allowing school administrators to regulate the speech if it 'materially disrupts' instruction at the school. The Vietnam-era case permitted a group of students to wear black armbands in protest of the war. The appeals court held that schools can regulate a student's speech under Tinker if it 'assertedly demeans characteristics of personal identity' of other students if the message is 'reasonably forecasted' to poison the 'educational atmosphere.' Morrison, who is represented by the religious legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, argues that decision 'sidelined' Tinker and 'gave near-total deference to the school's determination of what speech demeans protected characteristics and substantially disrupts its operations.' In their written response to the Supreme Court, school officials noted they are aware of transgender and gender-nonconforming students 'who had experienced serious mental health struggles, including suicidal ideation, related to their treatment by other students based on their gender identities' and that those struggles could impact the students' ability to learn.
