Aliquippa Police Sgt. Kenneth Watkins has returned to work.Watkins was placed on leave in May following the murder of Rachel DelTondo, who was shot outside of her family’s home in Aliquippa. Watkins was not placed on leave for disciplinary reasons but rather because he and his family were close friends with DelTondo. His return to work was confirmed by acting Aliquippa Police Chief Robert Sealock. DelTondo’s murder remains unsolved.

WEATHER FORECAST FOR WEDNESDAY, OCT. 24TH, 2018

TODAY – PARTLY CLOUDY. SLIGHT CHANCE OF A RAIN
SHOWER. HIGH – 48.

TONIGHT – PARTLY CLOUDY SKIES. LOW – 32.

THURSDAY – PARTLY SUNNY. HIGH – 52.

Pennsylvania expands income rules for seniors’ drug subsidy
HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — More older Pennsylvanians will qualify for prescription drug assistance under newly enacted eligibility standards.
Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf inked into law on Tuesday the legislation that passed the General Assembly unanimously earlier this month.
The income limits for PACENET will increase from $23,500 to $27,500 for individuals and from $31,500 to $35,500 for married couples.
It’s the first increase in income eligibility in 15 years.
Supporters say it will allow more than 14,000 people to enroll over the coming couple years, and prevent about 3,000 people from being kicked off the program.
PACENET and its companion program, PACE, are funded by the state lottery.

Wolf signs revisions to Pennsylvania’s organ donation law
HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — A revision to Pennsylvania’s law governing organ and tissue donations is going into effect, and backers say it will improve survival rates for transplant patients.
Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf on Tuesday signed the bill that passed both legislative chambers unanimously earlier this month.
The bill imposes rules to prevent organ donation from interfering with criminal investigations.
It lets those with power of attorney give permission for organs to be donated and sets out a procedure for determining the intention of a dying person if he or she hasn’t made clear if they want to donate their organs and tissues.
A voluntary organ donation fund on driver’s license and vehicle registration applications will increase from $1 to $3.
Officials say the state’s transplant waiting list currently has about 7,500 people.

In chaotic era, conference aims to amplify 1st Amendment
By TED ANTHONY, AP National Writer
PITTSBURGH (AP) — Not long ago in the American republic, information was less chaotic — or, at least, seemed to be. Newspapers appeared reliably on stoops every morning. Reassuring men from three networks delivered the news at dinnertime. We knew what was true, what was false, what was important.
Except it never actually was that way. Not really. And we now know that like never before.
A generation-long technological rumpus that upended how information is delivered and gave everyone with a device in their pocket the ability to speak globally has revealed, as never before, the chaos that is free expression in the United States.
For two days in Pittsburgh, a national exploration of what the First Amendment means to America in 2018 dug into every corner of this notion to understand where we are, and where we’re going, in terms of the rights Americans have to express themselves.
“Too many people in this country don’t understand how freedom works in their native land,” said Maxwell King, former editor of The Philadelphia Inquirer and head of the Pittsburgh Foundation, a philanthropy that co-sponsored the event at Duquesne University.
In the spirit of the amendment itself, a barrage of provocative ideas surfaced. And, predictably when it comes to free speech, few produced unanimous conclusions.
Among news leaders, government officials and academics, the consensus seemed to be this: In an era upended by technology and the behaviors that have grown up around it, the First Amendment remains pivotal to a functioning democracy — perhaps more so than ever in a society increasingly suspicious of the role that the mass media plays.
“I don’t believe democracies can exist without a free press,” Tom Ridge, secretary of Homeland Security under former Republican President George W. Bush and the onetime governor of Pennsylvania, said Monday.
Nevertheless, there’s much to consider about the role of the First Amendment in our sometimes-brave new world, and the rapid-fire questions ran the gamut Sunday and Monday, as they are wont to do in a free society:
Is “fake news” — however it is defined, and whoever uses the term — protected speech? Who checks facts, and who watches them do it? How do we balance the desire for open debate and the rising need for “safe spaces” on college campuses? When are leaks legal?
And what is speech, precisely, in this new world? Am I expressing myself by my choice of locations, and does that make my GPS data protected expression? Are veiled dark-internet encouragements to hurt or dismember someone speech that should be protected? Are social networks the new arbiters of who can be amplified? Should they be required to police content?
Finally: What does it mean when the president of the United States continually takes verbal potshots at the press and encourages disdain for media whose stories run counter to his narrative?
“The social media companies themselves don’t understand social media,” said Sree Sreenivasan, a leader in digital journalism and former associate dean of the Columbia Journalism School. He says Donald Trump’s presidency was “a direct result of him understanding social media better than the social media companies.”
So how do we sort this all out? First of all, you probably can’t. A strong portion of chaos is natural — healthy, even — when it comes to freedom of expression in a society based on personal liberty.
But the fragmentation of media, society and politics, and the willingness of partisans to exploit that to contentious ends, have made many wonder whether the relationship between polarization and unfettered, unverified expression is too corrosive. The approaching midterm elections lend an urgency to this as well.
“I think it’s really hard to have a democracy when we don’t agree on a baseline set of facts,” said Martin Baron, executive editor of The Washington Post. That, he said, is where responsible journalism must play a role.
Other reflections from speakers at the conference:
THE NORTH KOREA EXAMPLE — Suki Kim, a journalist who went undercover in North Korea for six months to chronicle life there, spoke of the deep indoctrination she encountered in that society. “If you cannot tell the difference between what is true and not true,” she said, “it changes your foundations.”
THE SMORGASBORD MODEL — Ohio Gov. John Kasich, appearing via video, exhorted Americans to ingest their media mindfully — as one might consider choosing items from a restaurant buffet. “Don’t be a siloed consumer of the press. Take a bite of everything,” Kasich said. “The ability to sample a lot and draw a conclusion is the best way to be a consumer of the news.”
THE EXPANDING WAYS WE COMMUNICATE — Noel Francisco, the solicitor general of the United States, marveled at how many more methods of communication exist than when the First Amendment was ratified in the 18th century. “We have a lot more speech today,” he said. “And I think that just means we will have a lot more kinds of speech that are protected.”
Hugh Hewitt, the radio host and media critic, took a moment to muse about the republic’s founders as well. What, he wondered, might people who measured information’s speed in days and weeks, not minutes and seconds, have made of this phantasmagorical media landscape that might well have left them, well, speechless?
“I wish we could summon their brains,” he said, “to deal with issues they could never have imagined.”
___
EDITOR’S NOTE — Ted Anthony, director of digital innovation for The Associated Press, writes frequently about American culture. Follow him on Twitter at @anthonyted.
__
This story has been corrected to show the former associate dean of Columbia Journalism School is Sree Sreenivasan, not Sree Srinivasan.

Cosby judge rejects new trial bid; Camille Cosby sees bias
By MARYCLAIRE DALE, Associated Press
PHILADELPHIA (AP) — A judge on Tuesday rejected Bill Cosby’s bid for a new trial or sentencing hearing, leading the comedian’s wife, Camille, to again accuse the judge of bias against her husband.
The ruling by the same judge that presided over Cosby’s trial also led the entertainer’s lawyers to file their appeal with the state Superior Court, the next step in trying to reverse his felony sex assault conviction.
Cosby is serving a three- to 10-year state prison term after a jury this year found he drugged and molested a woman in 2004. The defense wants the legally blind, 81-year-old actor released on bail while he appeals over alleged trial errors.
Cosby, in the meantime, is living in a single cell near the infirmary at the State Correctional Institution-Phoenix in suburban Philadelphia and has access to a day room, where he can watch television or eat meals, a state prisons spokeswoman said.
For now, he is the only person using that day room, spokeswoman Amy Worden said. Several inmates are assigned to help him as part of their prison jobs, she said. He has also had several visitors.
Camille Cosby continued to issue searing attacks against Montgomery County Judge Steven O’Neill, as she has done since the first trial ended in a jury deadlock in June 2017. In the latest missive Tuesday, she again said he should have stepped down from the case because his wife has advocated for sex assault victims. O’Neill has heard the argument before and said his wife’s work has no bearing on his legal rulings.
The defense also renewed attacks on the judge over what they call his feud with a key pretrial witness, former county District Attorney Bruce Castor.
Castor had declined to arrest Cosby when the accuser first came forward in 2005 and said he’d promised Cosby he would never be charged. When a successor did, O’Neill ruled that any verbal promise Castor made wasn’t legally binding. In an affidavit attached to Tuesday’s appeal, Castor said he believed O’Neill’s ruling was influenced by a long-ago feud between them.
“Mr. Cosby had a right to have his petition reviewed and decided by a judge who could make a decision free of bias, or even the perception of bias, where the ability to prosecute hinged on the testimony of the 2005 district attorney,” his new lawyers, the latest of about 20 to work the criminal case, wrote in the appeal.
The defense also challenged O’Neill’s decisions to let five other accusers testify; let the jury hear portions of Cosby’s damaging deposition in the accuser’s related lawsuit; and declare Cosby a sexually violent predator who remained a threat to the community.