Datasets:
Reproducibility
/
naacl22_wikitext15M

Dataset card Data Studio Files Community
text
stringlengths
0
7.06k
Following its final race in Abu Dhabi , the MP4 @-@ 30 took part in a series of tests organised by tyre supplier Pirelli to assess their planned allotment of tyre compounds for the 2016 season and to give teams the opportunity to acquaint themselves with the new compounds , including four different builds of the brand @-@ new <unk> compound . Stoffel Vandoorne resumed testing duties for the team for the duration of the test , where he completed ninety @-@ nine laps and set the fastest time of the test , three tenths of a second faster than the rest of the field and four tenths faster than the fastest time set during the race . The MP4 @-@ 30 made one final appearance before being retired from competition , taking part in wet tyre tests at the Circuit Paul Ricard in preparation for the 2016 season . The car was subsequently replaced by the McLaren MP4 @-@ 31 .
Under rules introduced in 2014 , the MP4 @-@ 30 was declared a " previous car " by the FIA — as were all of the cars that contested the 2015 season — restricting its use in testing and promotional filming as a means of preventing illegal testing given the similarities between the 2015 and 2016 Technical Regulations .
= = Complete Formula One results = =
( key ) ( results in bold indicate pole position ; results in italics indicate fastest lap )
Notes :
† — Driver failed to finish the race , but was classified as they had completed more than 90 % of the winner 's race distance .
‡ — Results adjusted post @-@ race following the application of penalties .
= Reed v. Town of Gilbert =
Reed v. Town of Gilbert , 576 U.S. _ _ _ ( 2015 ) was a case in which the United States Supreme Court clarified when municipalities may impose content @-@ based restrictions on signage . The case also clarified the level of constitutional scrutiny that should be applied to content @-@ based restrictions on speech . In 2005 , Gilbert , Arizona adopted a municipal sign ordinance that regulated the manner in which signs could be displayed in public areas . The ordinance imposed stricter limitations on signs advertising religious services than signs that displayed " political " or " ideological " messages . When the town 's Sign Code compliance manager cited a local church for violating the ordinance , the church filed a lawsuit in which they argued the town 's sign regulations violated its First Amendment right to the freedom of speech .
Writing for a majority of the Court , Justice Clarence Thomas held that the town 's sign ordinance imposed content @-@ based restrictions that did not survive strict scrutiny because the ordinance was not narrowly tailored to further a compelling government interest . Justice Thomas also clarified that strict scrutiny should always be applied when a law is content @-@ based on its face . Justice Stephen Breyer and Justice Elena Kagan both wrote opinions concurring in the judgment , in which they argued that content @-@ based regulations should not always automatically trigger strict scrutiny . Although some commentators praised the court 's decision as a victory for " individual liberty " , other commentators criticized the Court 's methodology . Some analysts have also suggested that the case left open several important questions within First Amendment jurisprudence that may be re @-@ litigated in future years .
= = Background = =
= = = Content @-@ based restrictions on speech = = =
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits states from enacting laws that abridge the freedom of speech . Municipal governments may not " restrict expression because of its message , its ideas , its subject matter , or its content " . Laws that regulate speech based on the expressive content of the speech are presumptively unconstitutional ; such restrictions are only permissible when they are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest . For the purposes of the First Amendment , government regulation of speech is considered " content @-@ based " when it targets speech because of ideas or messages that are expressed . Furthermore , some laws may still be considered " content @-@ based " even though they appear to be facially content @-@ neutral . Laws are considered " content @-@ based " if they cannot be " justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech " or if they were adopted " because of disagreement with the message [ the speech ] conveys " .
= = = Gilbert , Arizona municipal sign ordinance = = =
In 2005 , the town of Gilbert , Arizona adopted a municipal sign ordinance that regulated the manner in which signs could be displayed in public areas . Although the ordinance banned the display of most outdoor signs without a permit , twenty three categories of signs were exempt from the permit requirement . Three of those categories were relevant to this case . First , " ideological signs " , which contained " a message or ideas for noncommercial purposes " , could be up to twenty square feet in size and could be placed in any " zoning district " for any length of time . Second , " political signs " , which included content " designed to influence the outcome of an election called by a public body " , could be no larger than thirty two square feet on nonresidential property and sixteen square feet on residential property . Additionally , political signs could only be displayed " up to 60 days before a primary election and up to 15 days following a general election " . Third , “ temporary directional signs relating to a qualifying event " , which directed " pedestrians , motorists , and other passersby " to events hosted by non @-@ profit organizations , could be no larger than six square feet . Additionally , temporary directional signs relating to a qualifying event could be displayed no earlier than twelve hours before the start of a qualifying event and no later than one hour after the end of the event ; these signs could only be displayed in private property or public rights @-@ of @-@ way , but no more than four signs could be placed on a single property at the same time .
= = = Good News Community Church = = =
The named plaintiff , Clyde Reed , is the pastor of Good News Community Church . The church is a " small , cash @-@ strapped entity that own [ ed ] no building " and held services in elementary schools and other buildings in Gilbert , Arizona . On the original docket , the name was Good News Presbyterian Church because according to Reed , the church 's name has actually " vacillated " between that and Good News Community Church . Because the briefs had used " Community " , the District Court used it as well . To advertise their services , the church placed fifteen @-@ to @-@ twenty temporary signs in various locations around Gilbert . The signs would typically include the church 's name as well as the location and time of services . Members of the church " would post the signs early in the day on Saturday and then remove them around midday on Sunday " . However , the town 's Sign Code compliance manager cited the church on two occasions , for exceeding time limits when displaying signs and for failing to include the date of the event on a sign , respectively .
= = = Initial lawsuit = = =
The church filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona in March 2008 , where they claimed the town " abridged their freedom of speech in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments " . The district court first denied the church 's request for a preliminary injunction , and the church then appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit . The Ninth Circuit , analyzing the likelihood of success on the merits requirement for a preliminary injunction , affirmed the decision of the district court , holding that the town 's restrictions for temporary directional signs " did not regulate speech on the basis of content " Although the Ninth Circuit conceded that enforcement officers would need to read a sign to determine which portions of the sign ordinance applied to the sign , the Ninth Circuit concluded that this " cursory examination " was not equivalent to " synthesizing the expressive content of the sign " . The Ninth Circuit then remanded the case back to the district court to determine " in the first instance whether the Sign Code ’ s distinctions among temporary directional signs , political signs , and ideological signs nevertheless constituted a content @-@ based regulation of speech . "
= = = Remand and appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States = = =
At a subsequent status conference after the appellate court decision , the parties decided to resolve all the issues on summary judgment , rather than via new preliminary injunction motions . The United States District Court for the District of Arizona granted the Town 's motion for summary judgment . The church then appealed that ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit , but the Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court , holding the town 's ordinance was content neutral . Citing Hill v. Colorado , the Ninth Circuit ruled that " Gilbert did not adopt its regulation of speech because it disagreed with the message conveyed ” and that the town 's “ interests in <unk> [ ing ] temporary signs are unrelated to the content of the sign " . Additionally , the Ninth Circuit concluded that the distinctions between ideological signs , political signs , and temporary directional signs were " based on objective factors relevant to Gilbert ’ s creation of the specific exemption from the permit requirement and do not otherwise consider the substance of the sign ” . Based on its determination that the ordinance was content @-@ neutral , the Ninth Circuit " applied a lower level of scrutiny to the Sign Code " and held it did not violate the First Amendment . The church then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States , which granted certiorari on July 1 , 2014 .
= = Opinion of the Court = =
Writing for a majority of the Court , Justice Clarence Thomas held that the town 's sign ordinance was " content based on its face " in light of the fact that the " restrictions in the Sign Code that apply to any given sign [ depend ] entirely on the communicative content of the sign " . Because the church 's signs were " treated differently from signs conveying other types of ideas " , there was " no need to consider the government ’ s justifications or purposes for enacting the Code to determine whether it is subject to strict scrutiny " . Justice Thomas rejected the Ninth Circuit 's conclusion that the ordinance was content @-@ neutral because the regulations were not based on " disagree [ ment ] with the message conveyed " and the reasons for regulating the various categories of signs were " unrelated to the content of the sign [ s ] " . Rather , he emphasized that " [ a ] law that is content based on its face is subject to strict scrutiny regardless of the government ’ s benign motive , content @-@ neutral justification , or lack of ' animus toward the ideas contained ' in the regulated speech " . Justice Thomas explained that " innocent motives " do not eliminate the danger of censorship , because governments may one day use content @-@ based laws to regulate " disfavored speech " .
Additionally , Justice Thomas rejected the town 's assertion that a law is only content based if it " censor [ s ] or favor [ s ] " specific viewpoints or ideas . The town argued that its sign code was not unconstitutional because it neither endorsed nor suppressed any particular viewpoints or ideas . However , Justice Thomas clarified that a statute is content @-@ based if it singles out a specific subject , even though it may not target ideas or viewpoints within that subject matter . Furthermore , he also rejected the Ninth Circuit 's conclusion that the ordinance was content @-@ neutral because it targeted specific classes of speakers , rather than the content of their speech . Although he recognized that speaker @-@ based restrictions were only " the beginning — not the end — of the inquiry " , Justice Thomas held that " laws favoring some speakers over others demand strict scrutiny when the legislature ’ s speaker preference reflects a content preference " .
Because the ordinance imposed content @-@ based restrictions on free speech , Justice Thomas held that the ordinance would only be constitutional if it survived strict scrutiny . Assuming that the town 's interests of preserving aesthetic appeal and traffic safety were compelling , he concluded that these were " hopelessly <unk> " because the ordinance allowed for the proliferation of an unlimited number of larger , ideological signs that pose the same threats to aesthetics and traffic as directional signs . In fact , Justice Thomas suggested that a " sharply worded " ideological sign may be more likely to distract drivers than a directional sign . Justice Thomas also suggested that some directional signs " may be essential , both for vehicles and pedestrians , to guide traffic or to identify hazards and ensure safety " . Therefore , Justice Thomas remanded the case for reconsideration in light of the Court 's opinion .
= = = Justice Alito 's concurring opinion = = =
Justice Samuel Alito wrote a separate concurring opinion , in which he was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy and Justice Sonia Sotomayor . He agreed that content @-@ based regulations present the same dangers as viewpoint @-@ based regulations because content @-@ based regulations " may interfere with democratic self @-@ government and the search for truth " . He also agreed that the town 's ordinance was " replete with content @-@ based distinctions " that were subject to strict scrutiny . However , Justice Alito wrote separately to emphasize that the Court 's opinion would not " prevent cities from regulating signs in a way that fully protects public safety and serves legitimate esthetic objectives " . To support his argument , Justice Alito provided a list of examples of content @-@ neutral sign regulations , including : regulations that target the size of signs , regulations that target the locations at which signs may be placed , regulations distinguishing between lighted and <unk> signs , regulations that distinguish between the placement of signs on public and private property , rules that restrict the total number of signs " per mile of roadway " , and rules that distinguish between freestanding signs and signs that are attached to buildings .
= = = Justice Breyer 's opinion concurring in the judgment = = =
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment , in which he argued that content @-@ based discrimination should be considered a " rule of thumb , rather than as an automatic ' strict scrutiny ' trigger , leading to almost certain legal condemnation " . Justice Breyer conceded that content @-@ based regulations sometimes reveal weaknesses in the government 's rationale for limiting speech , and that content @-@ based regulations interfere with the " free marketplace of idea [ s ] " . However , he also argued that " virtually all government activities involve speech " , and many involve content @-@ based regulations on speech . Therefore , he concluded that a rule triggering strict scrutiny for all cases involving content @-@ based restrictions would be a " recipe for judicial management of ordinary government regulatory activity " . Justice Breyer argued that instead of the automatic trigger , courts should determine the constitutionality of content @-@ based regulations by " examining the seriousness of the harm to speech , the importance of the countervailing objectives , the extent to which the law will achieve those objectives , and whether there are other , less restrictive ways of doing so " . Although he did not believe strict scrutiny should be applied to the town 's sign ordinance , he agreed that the town 's ordinance was unconstitutional because the town did not provide a rational justification for treating some signs differently than other .
= = = Justice Kagan 's opinion concurring in the judgment = = =
Justice Elena Kagan also wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment , in which she was joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Stephen Breyer . Like Justice Breyer , Justice Kagan argued that it was not necessary to apply strict scrutiny to all content @-@ based restrictions on speech . She argued that the majority 's opinion would jeopardize too many " entirely reasonable " existing sign ordinances across the country . In light of the court 's opinion , Justice Kagan suggested that municipalities will now be forced to choose between repealing " exemptions that allow for helpful signs on streets and sidewalks " and lifting " sign restrictions altogether and resign [ ing ] themselves to the resulting clutter " . Instead of applying strict scrutiny in every case , Justice Kagan claimed that strict scrutiny is only appropriate when there is a " realistic possibility that official suppression of ideas is afoot " . Likewise , she also claimed that strict scrutiny is not necessary when there is no risk that regulations will " skew the public ’ s debate of ideas " . Applying these principles to this case , Justice Kagan held the ordinance " does not pass strict scrutiny , or intermediate scrutiny , or even the laugh test " because the town did not provide " any sensible basis " for the content @-@ based distinctions within its sign ordinance .
= = Analysis and commentary = =
After the court issued its decision , some commentators praised the Court 's ruling for " further [ ing ] individual liberty by striking down a government ’ s unjustified censorship of protected speech " . David A. <unk> , counsel for Good News Community Church , said the Court 's ruling was an " important victory for all the little guys who have ever found their speech silenced by the strong arm of government " . Likewise , Nina <unk> reported that one consequence of the Court 's decision is that " the government has much less power to regulate how other people speak . " However , other commentators criticized the majority opinion 's methodology ; Hadley <unk> , for example , wrote that the Court 's decision " revealed the unlovely spectacle of the conservatives talking themselves ever deeper into a genuine moral relativism in the regulation of speech " . Some analysts also claimed the majority 's opinion left open unanswered questions within the Court 's First Amendment jurisprudence . Lyle Denniston , for example , suggested that after the Court issued its decisions in Reed and Walker v. Texas Division , Sons of Confederate Veterans , " the meaning of the First Amendment , in general , became somewhat more confusing " . Eugene Volokh also suggested the Court 's opinion is likely to be litigated again in lower courts .
= Zaculeu =
Zaculeu or <unk> is a pre @-@ Columbian Maya archaeological site in the highlands of western Guatemala , about 3 @.@ 7 kilometres ( 2 @.@ 3 mi ) outside of the modern city of Huehuetenango . Occupation at the site dates to the Early Classic period ( AD 250 – 600 ) of Mesoamerican history . Zaculeu was the capital of the Postclassic Mam kingdom , and was conquered by the K 'iche ' Kingdom of Q 'umarkaj . It displays a mixture of Mam and K 'iche ' style architecture .
In AD 1525 the city was attacked by Spanish conquistadors under Gonzalo de Alvarado y Contreras during a siege that lasted several months . Kayb 'il B 'alam , the city 's last ruler , finally surrendered to the Spanish due to starvation .
The site contains a number of temple @-@ pyramids with talud @-@ tablero style architecture and double stairways . The pyramids and governmental palaces are grouped around a series of large public plazas . The site also holds a ballcourt for playing the Mesoamerican ballgame . The site was originally fortified with walls .
The site was restored by the United Fruit Company in the late 1940s . It is open to tourists and includes a small museum .
= = Etymology and location = =
The name Zaculeu means " white earth " in the Mam , K 'iche ' and Q 'anjob 'al languages , from <unk> ( <unk> ) meaning " white " and <unk> ( n ) meaning " earth " . In the Mam language , the site is also called <unk> .
The archaeological site is located in the present @-@ day village of San Lorenzo on the outskirts of Huehuetenango city , in the Guatemalan department of Huehuetenango . Zaculeu is the main tourist attraction in the Huehuetenango area . Zaculeu is located at an altitude of 1 @,@ 900 metres ( 6 @,@ 200 ft ) above mean sea level , and is bordered by the Sierra de los Cuchumatanes mountain range .
Zaculeu is located in an area of fertile soils close to the <unk> and Viña rivers . The site is situated on a plateau overlooking the <unk> River , which flows to the west of the city . Deep ravines bordering the site to the south and east protected its access . The only access to the site is via a narrow land bridge to the north which unites the plateau to the general level of the valley floor . The Zaculeu plateau measures 11 @,@ 178 square <unk> ( 4191 square metres ) .
= = History = =
Zaculeu was first occupied in the Early Classic Period ( AD 250 – 600 ) , and the buildings from this era show the architectural influence of the great metropolis of <unk> in the Valley of Mexico . The largest constructions date from the Classic Period ( AD 250 – 900 ) . To these were added other plaza groups and buildings in the Early Postclassic ( AD 900 – 1200 ) and Late Postclassic ( AD 1200 – 1525 ) in an unbroken history . Zaculeu has been used as a ceremonial site by Mam Maya continuously to the present .
Zaculeu came under the influence of central Mexico again in the Late Classic . The architectural influence is so distinct that it suggests that a foreign Mexican elite may have settled at the city and continued in occupation there until the K 'iche ' conquered the site in the Postclassic .
= = = K 'iche ' conquest = = =
The K 'iche ' Kingdom of Q 'umarkaj conquered Zaculeu in the Postclassic . Traditionally that has been calculated as during the 15th century AD based on <unk> accounts . Radiocarbon dating has pushed back the calculations of the K 'iche ' conquests by three centuries , and researchers now say their conquest of the Mam kingdoms may have taken place as early as the 12th century . The city was dominated by the K 'iche ' until the Spanish Conquest of the early 16th century .
The K 'iche ' king Q 'uq 'umatz died in battle against a group of the northern Mam . His son K 'iq 'ab continued where his father had left off and completed the conquest of the people . K 'iq 'ab was ruler when Zaculeu was conquered by the K 'iche . ' This appears to have been a second K 'iche ' conquest of the city , having previously fallen some time earlier . When the K 'iche ' conquered another kingdom , its practice was to place the newly subject kingdom under the control of one of the K 'iche ' noble lineages . Based on the style of Structure 4 , archeologists believe that Zaculeu was likely controlled by the Nija 'ib . ' The <unk> , who had conquered much of the region , are another possibility . The K 'iche ' tended to place their newly installed ruling elite in a mountain @-@ top fortress securing the population in the valleys below . However , substantial portions of the original Mam population remained in place in the plateau area .
The K 'iche ' rebuilt over earlier Classic period structures in a distinctively K 'iche ' style . The basic K 'iche layout consists of a westward @-@ facing temple with a steep talud @-@ tablero facade , flanked by two unequally sized wings . This was likely to have been the temple of Awilix , patron goddess of the Nija 'ib ' K 'iche ' . A longer palace structure lies to the north , facing southwards and the ballcourt to the southwest . This K 'iche ' layout was somewhat distorted by the reuse of the earlier architecture , because the typical Mam settlement layout was built along an axis running from southeast to northwest . As the K 'iche ' did not completely redesign the entire site along a K 'iche ' pattern , the juxtaposition of <unk> and K 'iche ' -style complexes demonstrates the fusing of the local and intrusive elite lineages .
Excavations have uncovered examples of metalwork at Zaculeu . These were small ornamental pieces . An example is a representation of a butterfly worked from <unk> , an alloy of gold and copper , dated to the Postclassic period .
= = = Spanish conquest = = =
Although hostilities existed between the Mam and the K 'iche ' of Q 'umarkaj after the rebellion of the Kaqchikel people against their K 'iche ' allies , the arrival of the Spanish conquistadors shifted the political landscape . Conquistador Pedro de Alvarado described how the Mam king Kayb 'il B 'alam was received with great honour in Q 'umarkaj .
At the time of the Spanish Conquest , the main Mam population was situated in Xinabahul ( also spelled <unk> ) , now the city of Huehuetenango . They retreated to Zaculeu as a refuge during the Spanish attacks because of its fortifications . The refuge was attacked by Gonzalo de Alvarado y Contreras , brother of conquistador Pedro de Alvarado , in 1525 , with 120 soldiers , and some 2 @,@ 000 Mexican and K 'iche ' allies . The city was defended by Kayb 'il B 'alam commanding some 5 @,@ 000 people ( the chronicles are not clear if this is the number of soldiers or the total population of Zaculeu ) .
After a siege lasting several months , the Mam were reduced to starvation . Kayb 'il B 'alam finally surrendered the city to the Spanish in October 1525 . When the Spanish entered the city , they found 1 @,@ 800 dead Indians , with the survivors eating the corpses of the dead . The Spanish forced the abandonment of Zaculeu after they built the new city of Huehuetenango some 5 kilometres ( 3 @.@ 1 mi ) away .
= = = Modern history = = =
American explorer John Lloyd Stephens and English architect Frederick Catherwood visited the site in 1840 , at which time the site was a confused jumble of overgrown ruins . Stephens published a description of the archaeological remains a year later . Catherwood did not draw any of the structures due to the poor state of the remains . The two excavated one of the mounds and recovered some ceramic vessels , which Catherwood drew .
On 24 April 1931 , Guatemala declared the site as a National Monument under the name of <unk> . On 23 February 1946 , the site was renamed as Zaculeu . The government gave a license to excavate to the United Fruit Company , which immediately began archaeological excavations and related restorations of the structures under the direction of John M. <unk> . This later included re @-@ coating a number of the buildings with white plaster , as it was known that many were originally finished that way . This has seldom been done in other restorations of Pre @-@ Columbian buildings .
On 12 June 1970 the site was declared a National <unk> Monument by accord of the Guatemalan Ministry of Education ( <unk> ) .