media

Part of award-winning filmmaker Akinola Davies Jr’s speech in which he says ‘Free Palestine’ was not aired.

The BBC is facing backlash for editing out a section of its coverage of the British Academy Film Awards (BAFTAs) in which prize-winning filmmaker Akinola Davies Jr says, “Free Palestine”, even while a racial slur remained audible in the same programme.

Davies Jr, who was awarded outstanding debut by a British writer, director or producer for his film My Father’s Shadow, ended his acceptance speech on Sunday with words of solidarity to “those under occupation, dictatorship, persecution and those experiencing genocide”.

“To those watching at home, archive your loved ones, archive your stories yesterday, today and forever. For Nigeria, for London, Congo, Sudan, Free Palestine,” he said.

The remarks were absent when the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) aired the event on a two-hour delay, prompting accusations of censorship from some viewers and advocacy groups.

Rights group Amnesty International’s United Kingdom chapter described the move to cut the speech as “shameful”.

“Thank you Akinola Davies Jr for using your platform to speak out for the rights of migrants and people facing and fleeing from persecution and mass atrocities – from the Congo to Sudan to Palestine,” said Amnesty UK.

The controversy was further amplified after a racial slur was heard during a separate segment of the broadcast. The offensive language was shouted by someone in the audience while Michael B Jordan and Delroy Lindo read out an award for best visual effects.

The event’s host Alan Cumming had earlier informed the audience that one attendee was John Davidson, who advocates for people with Tourette syndrome, a motor disorder that sometimes causes quick repetitive movements or sounds, including inappropriate language.

The broadcaster apologised for not omitting the outburst when airing the event. It said it would remove it from the version of the broadcast available on its streaming service

“Some viewers may have heard strong and offensive language during the Bafta Film Awards,” said the BBC statement. “This arose from involuntary verbal tics associated with Tourette syndrome, and as explained during the ceremony it was not intentional.”

When contacted by Al Jazeera English, the broadcaster declined to comment further on its editorial decisions regarding the BAFTA Awards, including the removal of Akinola Davies Jr’s “Free Palestine” remarks.

The BBC has previously faced criticism for coverage related to Israel and Gaza.

In June last year, the BBC opted not to broadcast a documentary it commissioned about medical workers in Gaza due to what it described as “partiality” issues, a decision more than 100 of the broadcaster’s own journalists petitioned against.

The BBC was also previously accused of editing out pro-Palestinian displays during its coverage of the 2023 BAFTA Awards, including several appeals for a ceasefire in war-battered Gaza.

Feb. 22 (Asia Today) — Major Japanese newspapers welcomed a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down President Donald Trump’s reciprocal tariffs as illegal, but they diverged on whether Tokyo should reconsider its large-scale investment in the United States.

The court ruled Thursday that Trump’s tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act violated Congress’s constitutional authority to levy taxes. As a result, Japan’s 15% reciprocal tariff lost its legal effect.

Trump, however, invoked Section 122 of the Trade Act and issued an executive order imposing an additional 10% tariff on all imports beginning Monday.

The conservative Yomiuri Shimbun said the ruling effectively curbed the “weaponization” of tariffs and could force Trump to recalibrate his deal-focused diplomacy. Citing Edward Fishman of the Council on Foreign Relations, the paper said using emergency economic powers to impose tariffs has now become “virtually impossible.”

The conservative Sankei Shimbun also welcomed the decision as a check on indiscriminate high tariffs on allies. However, it warned of “new turbulence” in U.S.-Japan trade ties as Trump moves forward with fresh duties under other trade provisions.

In a Feb. 22 editorial, Sankei urged the government of Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi to safeguard national interests at a planned summit in March. The paper called for reaffirming Japan’s $550 billion investment package in the United States, preventing additional unfavorable conditions and clarifying tariff refund procedures for Japanese firms.

William Cho, deputy director for Japan at the Hudson Institute, told Sankei in an interview that renegotiating the investment agreement in light of the court ruling would be unwise, describing projects such as natural gas power generation as both economic and political in nature.

By contrast, the liberal Asahi Shimbun characterized the ruling as a victory for the separation of powers, saying even a conservative Supreme Court had reaffirmed constitutional limits on executive authority. The paper urged Trump to withdraw tariff measures immediately and restore free trade principles, while calling on Tokyo to review the $550 billion investment deal.

The Mainichi Shimbun criticized what it described as Trump’s expansive legal interpretation of presidential authority and warned that continued reliance on Section 122 could undermine the premise of Japan’s 80 trillion yen investment plan.

Despite differing views on investment policy, the four major dailies – Yomiuri, Sankei, Asahi and Mainichi – described the ruling as a welcome brake on high tariffs.

On investment strategy, however, the dominant view expressed by Yomiuri and Sankei favors maintaining and managing U.S. investments in line with national interests, a stance that mirrors the Japanese government’s position.

Economy, Trade and Industry Minister Ryosei Akazawa recently reaffirmed that there is no change to the $550 billion investment agreement during talks with U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. A government official also said Japan’s overall investment plan remains intact.

With Takaichi planning a March visit to Washington and Trump expected to visit China around the same time, Japanese media are closely watching how Tokyo balances national interests within the evolving U.S.-Japan-China dynamic.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260222010006426

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has appeared in a Los Angeles court to answer questions about accusations of harm that his company causes to young users.

The landmark trial is looking into the addictive aspects of the use of social media.

It’s part of a big wave of growing anger against tech platforms, which are said to contribute to addictive behaviour.

As a response, some countries have already started restricting access to youngsters.

Others have gone as far as banning their use for children younger than 16.

But can a court case change things?

And what role should families play in controlling their kids’ excessive use of social media?

Presenter: James Bays

Guests:

Adele Walton – Online safety campaigner

Larry Magid – CEO of ConnectSafely.org, an internet safety and security organisation that advises companies, including Facebook

Donna Dawson – Psychologist focusing on personality and behaviour

Feb. 18 (UPI) — Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg is expected to testify Wednesday in a trial that will decide if his social media platforms and YouTube intentionally harmed children and teens.

The lawsuit in Los Angeles was filed by a 20-year-old woman called KGM in the suit and her mother, Karen Glenn, who claim the platforms damaged her mental health as a child. It’s the first in a group of lawsuits brought by 1,600 parents, teens and school districts who allege that when teens are addicted to the platforms, they suffer from depression, self-harm, eating disorders and more.

KGM, also known as Kaley in the suit, began using YouTube at age 6 and Instagram at 9, said her lawyer, Mark Lanier. Despite her mother’s efforts to mitigate her social media use, Kaley sometimes used Instagram for “several hours a day.” The app’s addictive features led her to develop anxiety, body dysmorphia and suicidal thoughts, she alleges. She was also the victim of bullying and sextortion.

A Meta spokesperson said the company strongly disagrees with the allegations.

“The question for the jury in Los Angeles is whether Instagram was a substantial factor in the plaintiff’s mental health struggles,” CNN reported a Meta spokesperson said in a statement. “The evidence will show she faced many significant, difficult challenges well before she ever used social media.”

The company said it is “confident the evidence will show our longstanding commitment to supporting young people.”

Plaintiffs’ lawyers in the cases say internal documents at the companies stress the goal of making apps difficult to put down like infinite scroll, auto-play, likes, beauty filters and push notifications.

“These companies built machines designed to addict the brains of children,” lawyer Mark Lanier said in his opening statements, NPR reported. “And they did it on purpose.”

The trial is in state court, which means there only needs to be nine of the 12 jurors in agreement. If Kaley and her mother win, it could lead to settlements in the other cases.

Feb. 17 (UPI) — Spanish authorities plan to investigate social media giants X, Meta and TikTok over the distribution of child sex abuse materials on their respective social media platforms, the government announced Tuesday.

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez said there is a pending investigation by state prosecutors into the alleged spread of artificial intelligence-generated material.

“These platforms are jeopardizing the mental health, dignity and rights of our sons and daughters,” Sanchez said in a translated post on X.

“The state cannot allow this,” he said. “The impunity of the giants must end.”

The Spanish government said it is looking at options for holding tech firms accountable for “potential criminal liability of increasingly widespread practices in the digital environment, such as the generation and dissemination of sexual content and child sexual abuse through deepfakes and the manipulation of real images to create others with explicit sexual content, thereby undermining the dignity of the victims,” as reported by The Guardian.

A recently produced report suggested that social media platforms enable the creation and rapid distribution of offensive content that enables their makers to elude detection and potential criminal prosecution.

Meanwhile, the respective social media sites profit from such activities, officials said.

Sanchez said Spain’s Council of Ministers will invoke Article 8 of the Organic Statute of the Public Ministry to ask it to investigate the alleged crimes that the three tech firms might be committing via the creation and distribution of AI-generated child sexual abuse materials using their respective AI tools.

The Spanish probe into the social media giants arose after French authorities raided X’s offices in Paris over similar accusations, but X officials there have denied any wrongdoing.

X recently added Grok AI, which is the creation of Elon Musk’s xAI artificial intelligence company. Musk also owns X.

TikTok offers AI tools, while Meta AI is integrated into Meta’s Facebook, Instagram, Messenger and WhatsApp platforms.

The issue raises the matter of free speech laws in the European Union and the United States.

Ireland’s Data Protection Commission is among European regulatory bodies leading the European Commission’s inquiry into X over the use of the Grok AI tool to generate deepfake and sexualized images of real people, including children.

The investigation is to determine if X is complying with European laws regarding personal data and how algorithms might protect lawbreakers.

The Irish Rugby Football Union had to turn off comments on a social media post which congratulated debutant Edwin Edogbo, following replies which contained racial abuse.

Munster forward Edogbo came off the bench and played the final 10 minutes of Saturday’s 20-13 victory over Italy in the Six Nations.

The IRFU confirmed in a statement that the comments made on the social media post on Saturday are now subject to investigation.

“We’re aware of some targeted abuse online in recent days and continue to work with Signify and the relevant authorities to report it,” the full IRFU statement read.

“We will also continue to fully support all affected by the cowardly actions of a minority and investigations are under way alongside our partners Signify.

“It is clear that racist abuse has no place in Irish society and the IRFU has a zero tolerance policy towards racism of any form.”

The 23-year-old lock has made 24 appearances for Munster and has registered 30 points.

After that nervy victory on Saturday, Ireland head coach Andy Farrell praised the debutant’s contribution in his post-match news conference.

“Well, we need to celebrate Edwin’s first cap, that is for sure as it is one amazing story,” Farrell said.

“I am so pleased we were able to get a win and show some fight to get a win for him because his story is a phenomenal one so we will celebrate that with him.”

The Rev. Jesse Jackson said Monday that the predominantly white news media were “bound by their own culture” in reporting and interpreting his historic presidential campaign but added that he has seen “an evolution in the media’s consciousness and its maturity.”

Jackson, questioned during a radio news conference about whether a media racial bias has crippled his campaign, said he could not estimate its impact.

However, he took credit for “educating many members of the media. Some have made better grades than others.”

“I’ve taken the media to the low places. I’ve taken them to the ghettos, the barrios, the reservations,” Jackson said. “The media people covering my campaign know more of America than their publishers do, than their editors do, and, therefore, their job will be to educate their bosses.”

He called on news organizations to be more aggressive in hiring and promoting women and minority members.

In particular, he said, they must be advanced into decision-making positions, where they are participating in “the meetings about what story is going to be covered, what the slants are. There must be a multicultural presence in that room to have a multicultural result.”

Social Media Murders is an anthology docu-series that looks into the shocking murders of young people.

Social Media Murders returns to screens this evening, examining the tragic killing of 19-year-old Bianca Devins.

The documentary series Social Media Murders first broadcast in 2021, and now the 10-part programme is being reshown, with its third episode airing tonight, Wednesday, February 11, at 11.40pm on ITV.

Titled The Murder of Bianca Devins, this episode explores the teenager’s death in July 2019. She was killed by Brandon Clark, 21, an acquaintance she’d connected with on Instagram.

The pair were travelling home from a gig in Queens, New York City, when he fatally attacked her with a knife before sharing disturbing photographs of her body online.

Clark then tried to end his own life after murdering Bianca but survived. Following his arrest, authorities discovered he had also recorded footage of her final moments.

Where is Brandon Clark now?

Brandon Clark admitted to the second-degree murder of Bianca Devins in February 2020 and is presently incarcerated at Attica Correctional Facility in New York, serving a 25-year sentence.

According to Distractify, during his sentencing hearing, Clark stated: “I hate myself for what I did to her.

“I don’t understand how I could do something like that. It disgusts me.”

That wasn’t his only public statement. Three years ago, he participated in a contentious interview with Yinka Bokinni for Channel 4‘s Interview With A Killer.

At the time, Bianca’s mother Kim penned a letter to Channel 4 and Plum Productions pleading with them not to broadcast the documentary, expressing her concern that it would inflict “immense emotional distress” on Bianca’s family and friends.

In the wake of her daughter’s tragic passing, Kim has been campaigning for reform in the realm of social media as images of Bianca’s body continued to circulate online.

Bianca’s Law was introduced in 2020, criminalising the posting of offensive images of crime victims within New York State.

Social Media Murders is available to watch on ITV and ITVX.

Two lawsuits accusing the world’s largest social media companies of harming children begin this week, marking the first legal efforts to hold companies like Meta responsible for the effects their products have on young users.

Opening arguments began today in a case brought by New Mexico’s attorney general’s office, which alleges that Meta failed to protect children from sexually explicit material. A separate case in Los Angeles, which accuses Meta and the Google-owned YouTube of deliberately designing their platforms to be addictive for children, is set to begin later this week.

TikTok and Snap were also named in the original California lawsuit but later settled under undisclosed terms.

The New Mexico and California lawsuits are the first of a wave of 40 lawsuits filed by state attorneys general around the US against Meta, specifically, that allege that the social media giant is harming the mental health of young Americans.

New Mexico case

In the opening argument in the New Mexico case, which was first filed in 2023, prosecutors told jurors on Monday that Meta – Facebook and Instagram’s parent company – had failed to disclose its platforms’ harmful effects on kids.

“The theme throughout this trial is going to be that Meta put profits over safety,” said lawyer Donald Migliori, who is representing the state of New Mexico against Meta.

“Meta clearly knew that youth safety was not its corporate priority… that youth safety was less important than growth and engagement.”

Prosecutors say they will provide evidence and testimony that Meta’s algorithms and account features not only enticed young people and made them addicted to social media, but also fostered a “breeding ground” for predators who target children for sexual exploitation.

Late last month, in the process of discovery, the New Mexico attorney general’s office said the company did not put in safeguards to protect children from accessing sexualised chatbots on Facebook and Instagram.

In emails obtained by the court, some of Meta’s safety staff had expressed objections that the company was building chatbots geared for companionship, including sexual and romantic interactions with users, according to the Reuters news agency.

The artificial intelligence chatbots were released in early 2024. The documents cited in the state’s filing do not include messages or memos authored by Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg. In October 2025, Meta added parental controls to the chatbots.

California case

The California case is more wide-reaching and alleges that Meta and YouTube, which is a unit of Alphabet-owned Google, used deliberate design choices that sought to make their platforms more addictive to children to boost profits.

The case centres around a 19-year-old identified only by the initials KGM. The case could determine how thousands of other, similar lawsuits against social media companies will play out.

KGM claims that her use of social media from an early age made her addicted to the technology and exacerbated her depression and suicidal thoughts.

“Borrowing heavily from the behavioral and neurobiological techniques used by slot machines and exploited by the cigarette industry, Defendants deliberately embedded in their products an array of design features aimed at maximizing youth engagement to drive advertising revenue,” the lawsuit says.

Executives, including Zuckerberg, are expected to testify at the trial, which will last six to eight weeks. It is unclear if they will attend the New Mexico case.

The tech companies dispute the claims that their products deliberately harm children, citing a bevvy of safeguards they have added over the years and arguing that they are not liable for content posted on their sites by third parties.

“Recently, a number of lawsuits have attempted to place the blame for teen mental health struggles squarely on social media companies,” Meta said in a recent blog post. “But this oversimplifies a serious issue. Clinicians and researchers find that mental health is a deeply complex and multifaceted issue, and trends regarding teens’ well-being aren’t clear-cut or universal.

Narrowing the challenges faced by teens to a single factor ignores the scientific research and the many stressors impacting young people today, like academic pressure, school safety, socio-economic challenges and substance abuse.”

A Meta spokesperson said in a recent statement that the company strongly disagrees with the allegations outlined in the lawsuit and that it is “confident the evidence will show our longstanding commitment to supporting young people”.

Jose Castaneda, a Google spokesperson, said the allegations against YouTube are “simply not true”.

“Providing young people with a safer, healthier experience has always been core to our work,” he said in a statement.

High stakes

The outcome of the cases could shape the future of social media.

“In my mind, an existential question for social media services is whether they’re liable for harm suffered by users from using the services. If so, the damages could be more money than the defendants have, Eric Goldman, a professor at the Santa Clara University School of Law, told Al Jazeera.

“We’re talking about massive financial stakes, and we’re also talking about the ability of the plaintiffs to veto or potentially override editorial decisions by the services about what’s in the best interests of their audiences,” he said.

“It’s essentially taking away power from the services to decide and handing it to plaintiffs’ lawyers. So, not only could there be existential damages, but there could also be a massive loss of editorial control over their services. The stakes could not be higher for social media services or the internet.”

Goldman said this was because the same argument could be used to shape claims against video game makers and generative AI, which refers to AI that can create original content, including text and video.

“If these theories work against social media, they might also work against video games, against generative AI, and who knows what else. That’s why I said the stakes are so high for the internet,” he added.

There are already lawsuits that claim that interactions with OpenAI’s ChatGPT led to instances of suicide and murder-suicide.

On Wall Street, Meta stock is trending up by more than 3 percent in midday trading.

Jeffrey Epstein pressured a media tycoon he did business with to quash coverage of allegations of his sexual abuse of girls, according to documents released by the United States Department of Justice.

Epstein leveraged close personal and professional ties with the Canadian-American billionaire Mortimer Zuckerman to try to influence the New York Daily News’s coverage of allegations against him after his 2008 conviction for soliciting a minor for prostitution, the documents show.

After Epstein reached out to Zuckerman, the then-owner of the Daily News, the tabloid first delayed its coverage of the allegations and then omitted details that the late financier had specifically requested be left out, according to the documents.

In an email dated October 9, 2009, Epstein shared a “proposed answer” to questions from the newspaper with Zuckerman that disputed allegations made against him and his girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell, who is currently serving a 20-year sentence for child sex trafficking.

The allegations, which had been put to Epstein and Maxwell by then-Daily News journalist George Rush, included accusations that the pair had subjected a minor known as “Jane Doe No 102” to routine sexual abuse and had engaged in threesomes with “various underage girls”.

The allegations also included claims that Maxwell kept a computer database of “hundreds of girls and oversaw the schedule of girls who came to Epstein’s homes”.

In the proposed response that he shared with Zuckerman, Epstein said “no sex occurred” with Jane Doe No 102 and she had admitted in a deposition to being an “escort, call girl, and a massage parlor worker since the age of 15”.

“All of the adult establishments in which she admitted working require proof of age. Rc the rest of the questions,” Epstein’s email to Zuckerman said.

“These are all malicious fabrications designed to get Mr Edwards clients more money than they normally receive though she did testify under oath that she made as much as 2000 per day,” the email said, referring to Bradley J Edwards, a Florida-based lawyer who has represented many of Epstein’s accusers.

Later that day, Zuckerman told Epstein in an email that the Daily News was “doing major editing over huge objections” and he would “c copy asap”.

“take ghislaine out. if possible,” Epstein responded in an email a few minutes later.

“the very first plaintiff, deposed admitted in a sworn videotaped statement that she lied and was an escort , call girl since age 15. SHE took the fifth. over 40 times.. its crazy.. thanks for you help.”

“Please call me asap,” Zuckerman wrote to Epstein several hours later, before asking Epstein to call him again later that night.

The Daily News ultimately published an article on December 19, 2009, that described Epstein reaching a settlement with his accuser for an undisclosed amount of money.

The article noted that Epstein was facing “more than a dozen” lawsuits from women who accused him of sexually abusing them but made no mention of Maxwell or the allegations against her.

Zuckerman, a staunch supporter of Israel who served as head of the America-Israel Friendship League and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, has never been accused of any involvement in Epstein’s crimes.

Rush, who left the Daily News in 2010, confirmed that Epstein had tried to “cajole” Zuckerman, the current owner of US News & World Report, into burying or shaping the story to Epstein’s liking.

Rush said the Daily News decided to delay publication after Epstein offered the newspaper an interview.

“Unfortunately, Epstein immediately insisted that the interview be off the record. He also used the conversation to make remorseless claims that he was a victim of overzealous prosecutors and shyster lawyers,” Rush told Al Jazeera.

Rush said Zuckerman, who sold the Daily News in 2017, never suggested that the newspaper cancel the story altogether or publish coverage that was favourable to Epstein.

“I do recall being advised to leave Ghislaine Maxwell out of the story,” Rush said.

“At the time, the paper’s lawyers had libel concerns, and I saw it as a necessary compromise.”

Rush said he had objected to the efforts to interfere in his story but the episode did not cause a “newsroom furore”.

“Most people hadn’t heard of Epstein at that point. I didn’t like Epstein and Maxwell trying to appeal to the owner,” he said.

“But I was relieved that the story wasn’t killed, just delayed, and hopeful that Epstein might say something quotable in the interview. It speaks to Epstein’s arrogance that he thought he had the power to get Mort to do his bidding.”

Zuckerman’s personal assistant and the Zuckerman STEM Leadership Program, an initiative founded by the billionaire to fund scientific collaboration between the US and Israel, did not reply to requests for comment from Al Jazeera.

Ties for two decades

Zuckerman’s ties to Epstein stretch back more than 20 years.

In 2005, Zuckerman, who also owned The Atlantic magazine from 1984 to 1999, worked with Epstein on the short-lived relaunch of the gossip-and-entertainment magazine Radar.

After a US congressional panel in September released a scrapbook prepared for Epstein’s 50th birthday in 2003, Zuckerman was among a slew of high-profile names revealed to have sent the financier their well-wishes.

But the latest tranche of files from the 2019 prosecution of Epstein, released last week by US authorities, show that Zuckerman’s relationship with the sex offender was much closer than previously believed.

In 2008, Zuckerman sought Epstein’s advice on his plans for passing on his estate, sharing sensitive details about his financial affairs in the process, including a copy of his will and an evaluation of his assets that put his net worth at $1.9bn.

In 2013, Epstein drafted several agreements to provide Zuckerman with “analysing, evaluating, planning and other services” related to the billionaire’s plans for passing on his wealth.

Epstein proposed a fee of $30m in a proposal drafted in June 2013 before offering his services for $21m in a revised proposal that December, according to the documents.

In correspondence around this period, Zuckerman appeared to hold Epstein’s claimed expertise in high regard.

“Your questions have been critical to my growing understanding of how much lies ahead before my finances are properly organized,” Zuckerman wrote to Epstein in an email dated October 12, 2013, after the financier had earlier claimed to have identified “wild errors” in Zuckerman’s accounting of his finances.

“You have been an invaluable friend and In the most constructive way a provocateur I am completely grateful and am now beginning to focus, in on the issues you have raised. With appreciation from a hesitant amateur   Mort.”

It is not clear whether Zuckerman ultimately signed the agreement proposed by Epstein.

Zuckerman and Epstein communicated regularly, and the two men arranged numerous dinners and other meetings over the years, according to the documents, including at the financier’s Manhattan home.

“Mort is now booked for tonight at 8:30…i am being asked if you could see him this weekend…please advise,” Lesley Groff, Epstein’s personal assistant, wrote on May 5, 2015, in one of many emails detailing appointments.

While Zuckerman turned to Epstein for financial advice, he also appeared to regard him as a friend.

“Hi there. You are very special. And a great friend. Mort,” Zuckerman wrote to Epstein in an email dated August 24, 2014.

A court in Hong Kong has sentenced pro-democracy media tycoon Jimmy Lai to 20 years in jail following his conviction under a sweeping national security law imposed by Beijing.

A summary document by the court on Monday said 18 years of Lai’s sentence should be served consecutively to the existing five-year jail term in his fraud case.

The 78-year-old founder of the now defunct Apple Daily has already spent more than five years behind bars and was found guilty in December on two counts of foreign collusion and one count of seditious publication.

Given his age, the prison term could keep him behind bars for the rest of his life.

Ahead of the sentencing, rights groups and Western governments called for Lai’s release, with some denouncing the case as “nothing but a charade”.

Lai’s family, lawyer, supporters and former colleagues have warned that he could die in prison as he suffers from health conditions, including heart palpitations and high blood pressure.

Before Lai left the courtroom, he looked serious, as some people in the public gallery cried.

In addition to Lai, six former senior Apple Daily staffers, an activist and a paralegal were also sentenced on Monday.

His co-defendants received jail terms between 6 years and 3 months and 10 years.

The convicted journalists are publisher Cheung Kim-hung, associate publisher Chan Pui-man, editor-in-chief Ryan Law, executive editor-in-chief Lam Man-chung, executive editor-in-chief responsible for English news Fung Wai-kong and editorial writer Yeung Ching-kee.

Ahead of the sentencing, the Committee to Protect Journalists said in a statement that Lai’s trial “has been nothing but a charade from the start and shows total contempt for Hong Kong laws that are supposed to protect press freedom”.

Reporters Without Borders said the sentencing “will resonate far beyond Jimmy Lai himself, sending a decisive signal about the future of press freedom in the territory”.

Beijing has dismissed such criticism as attempts to smear Hong Kong’s judicial system, while Hong Kong authorities maintain that Lai’s case “has nothing to do with freedom of speech and of the press”.

Lai was one of the first prominent figures to be arrested under the security law, imposed in 2020. Within a year, some of Apple Daily’s senior journalists also were arrested. Police raids, prosecutions and a freeze of its assets forced the newspaper’s closure in June 2021.

The final edition sold a million copies.

Lai’s sentencing could heighten Beijing’s diplomatic tensions with foreign governments. His conviction has drawn criticism from the United Kingdom and the United States.

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer said he had raised Lai’s case during his meeting with Chinese leader Xi Jinping in Beijing last month, adding that the discussion was “respectful”.

Lai is a British citizen.

US President Donald Trump said he felt “so badly” after the verdict and noted he spoke to Xi about Lai and “asked to consider his release”.

Lai’s daughter, Claire, told The Associated Press news agency that she hopes authorities see the wisdom in releasing her father, a Roman Catholic. She said their faith rests in God. “We will never stop fighting until he is free,” she said.

Ahead of the sentencing, Hong Kong Free Press reported that police detained a woman outside the West Kowloon court after finding an Apple Daily keychain in her possession.

At least two other activists were also searched, including Tsang Kin-shing, a member of the now-disbanded League of Social Democrats.

The sentencing comes against the backdrop of heightened restrictions on the Hong Kong press.

The Hong Kong Journalists Association said in 2024 that dozens of journalists faced “systematic and organised” harassment and intimidation, including leaked personal information and death threats.

According to Reporters Without Borders, at least 900 Hong Kong journalists lost their jobs in the four years following the enactment of the national security law in the city.

The Super Bowl, the biggest event in American football, is set for Sunday with the Seattle Seahawks facing the New England Patriots at Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara, California.

The massive sporting event is set to energise fans in both cities and will send thousands this year to the San Francisco Bay Area. Those unable to make the trip are still expected to spend heavily on food, drinks and watch parties across the United States.

Historically, the Super Bowl has been a major economic boon for host cities. For the Bay Area, the event is part of a stretch of three major sporting spectacles lifting the regional economy.

A local boost?

In 2024, the Bay Area Host Committee commissioned a report forecasting the economic impact of the 2025 NBA All-Star Game, the 2026 Super Bowl, and the FIFA World Cup, all taking place in the region. The report estimated that Sunday’s game alone would generate between $370m and $630m in economic output for the Bay Area.

Last year’s Super Bowl was hosted in New Orleans, Louisiana. State officials reported the event brought in 115,000 visitors who spent $658m in the city.

For consumers, Bank of America estimates a 77 percent jump in spending near the stadium. A study analysing spending patterns from Super Bowl games between 2017 and 2025 found that, on game day, spending surged in the postal code closest to the stadium, with the biggest surge in food and parking costs.

Hosting the game does come with its own expenses for cities.

In the case of Santa Clara, it is small compared with the forecasted output. Last year, it was projected the city would cost them $6.3m, which includes training personnel for the influx of visitors and other logistical needs. However, other games have cost municipalities much more. When Atlanta hosted the Super Bowl in 2019, it cost the city an estimated $46m.

In 2023, the day after the game, which was played in Glendale, Arizona, outside of Phoenix, was the single busiest at Phoenix Sky Harbor international airport in its history, with more than 200,000 passengers passing through the airport, which is a hub for American Airlines and where budget carriers Southwest Airlines and Frontier maintain a large presence.

Other cities have used major sporting events to kick off large-scale infrastructure projects. In 2004 – ahead of the Super Bowl in Houston, Texas – METRO, the city’s transit authority, launched its first light rail line just a month before the game. The line, now one of three in the system, runs from downtown Houston to the city’s football stadium.

Prior to its launch, Houston was the only major metropolitan city in the US without a rail system.

But not all infrastructure projects paid off. Las Vegas built Allegiant Stadium in the neighbouring suburb of Paradise when the city acquired the Raiders football team from Oakland during the 2020 season. A year later, in 2021, Las Vegas won the bid to host the 2024 Super Bowl. The stadium cost $1.9bn. Nearly $750m came from hotel taxes, but the rest was shouldered by local taxpayers.

“The economic benefits are relatively short-term, not just in duration, but also in scope. They’re limited to certain industries and specific locations,” Michael Edwards, a professor of sport management at North Carolina State University, told Al Jazeera.

“The NFL [National Football League] often uses the Super Bowl as a carrot to encourage cities to invest taxpayer money in new stadiums. You’re seeing that dynamic play out in places like Chicago and Cleveland, where officials are considering domed stadiums. Part of that push is almost certainly driven by the possibility of hosting a Super Bowl, which the league dangles as an incentive,” Edwards said.

Food spending

For those who can’t make it to the game itself, there is still a surge in Americans heading to bars and restaurants to watch the game or spending money throwing a watch party.

The National Retail Federation, which has been tracking Super Bowl spending for the last decade, expects that Americans will spend a record $20.2bn, or $94.77 per person, on the big game with 79 percent of that on food.

Spending has skyrocketed since 2021 when consumers spent $13.9bn, or $74.55 per person. However, that dropped from $17.2bn in 2020 when the Super Bowl happened about a month before the COVID-19 lockdowns in the US began.

For those hosting a Super Bowl watch party at home, it will cost more than last year to stock up on the quintessential game-day foods. Wells Fargo estimates that hosting 10 people will cost about $140 per person, up from $138 last year.

Chicken wings, a staple for football fans, are a bright spot for wallets; prices are down 2.8 percent compared with this time last year. Potato chip prices are flat, but dips like salsa have jumped 1.7 percent.

Healthier options are getting more expensive as well for those opting for a veggie platter. Cherry tomatoes are up 2 percent, celery has risen 2.6 percent, and both broccoli and cauliflower are up 4 percent. Beer prices are also climbing, up 1.3 percent from a year ago.

Advertising hits records

The Super Bowl is airing on NBC with the network getting a boost in advertising spending for the big game. NBC sold out of advertising spots for the Super Bowl in September for a record $10m on average for a 30-second spot – up from $8m on average last year when the games aired on Fox.

NBC also benefits from a collection of sporting events all taking part in February that drive up advertising revenue, including from the Winter Olympics. The opening ceremony is on Friday and will run until February 22. NBC has exclusive broadcasting rights for the Olympics in the US.

“With the resurgence of the Olympic movement, our strongest Sports Upfront in history, the early sell-out of Super Bowl LX, and the remarkable return of the NBA, NBCUniversal has solidified itself as a sports powerhouse, and brands have taken notice,” Mark Marshall, chairman of NBCUniversal’s global advertising and partnerships, said in a release.

The last time the games were in the same year, back in 2024, the two events were the most-watched events on linear television.

On Wall Street, the looming sporting events set to air on NBC have sent parent company Comcast’s stock surging up more than 4 percent over the past five days.

Feb. 3 (UPI) — Spain announced it will ban social media for children younger than 16 and introduce measures that hold platforms and people accountable.

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez spoke at the World Government Summit in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and denounced social media companies’ misconduct. He said access for young teens will end next week as part of five new government measures against the platforms.

“Social media has become a failed state, a place where laws are ignored, and crime is endured, where disinformation is worth more than truth, and half of users suffer hate speech,” Sanchez said. “A failed state in which algorithms distort the public conversation and our data and image are defied and sold.”

He said, “platforms will be required to implement effective age-verification systems — not just checkboxes, but real barriers that work.”

“Today, our children are exposed to a space they were never meant to navigate alone: a space of addiction, abuse, pornography, manipulation and violence. We will no longer accept that. We will protect them from the digital wild west,” Sanchez said.

The first country to ban young teens from social media was Australia, which implemented its new law in December. There is also a measure in the French National Assembly to do the same. Greece, Denmark, Ireland and Great Britain are considering similar laws.

Spain hasn’t said which platforms will be subject to the new law. But during his speech, Sanchez criticized TikTok, X and Instagram.

Spain’s other measures include developing a “hate and polarization footprint,” which would track and quantify how platforms create division and magnify hate. Sanchez said the government will also hold social media executives criminally liable for failure to remove illegal or hateful content.

“We will turn algorithmic manipulation and amplification of illegal content into a new criminal offense,” he said in Dubai. “Spreading hate must come at a cost.”

MILLIE Mackintosh and Hugo Taylor have called it quits after seven years of marriage.

Though it wasn’t all smooth sailing for the Made In Chelsea stars, who reportedly split following a “difficult start to the year.”

Looking back over the end of the couple’s relationship, there were indicators of trouble brewing in paradise.

Here are all the signs that Millie and Hugo were preparing to part ways, or had already parted ways prior to making the announcement public.

DWINDLING SOCIAL POSTS

In the months prior to the split there was a notable lack of posts online featuring the couple together.

The last one appeared on Millie’s Instagram account on Boxing Day, where she wished all of her followers a happy Christmas and posted snippets from what she described as “a wonderful few days”.

Read more Millie Mackintosh

it’s over

Millie Mackintosh and Hugo Taylor SPLIT after seven years of marriage

THROUGH THE MILL

My therapist said I’m ‘addicted to my anxiety’, admits Millie Mackintosh

The primary photo in the carousel shows Millie holding hands with her daughter, with no mention of Hugo.

It isn’t actually until the ninth photo in that Hugo makes an appearance at all, smiling at the camera while Millie looks away from him.

They’re both dressed up smartly for the holidays, a daughter in each of their arms by a neatly placed dinner table.

MILLIE’S SOLO GETAWAY

Before news of the split broke Millie posted a reel to her Instagram grid from a week long retreat.

She’s at the calming location alone, documenting the journey in a day-in-the-life style.

Millie captioned the content: “My schedule this week. Yoga, Massage. Eating. Resting. Repeat. I’m taking this feeling home with me.”

Her followers wished her a wonderful time in the post’s comments section.

MILLIE’S SPILLS THAT SHE’S STRESSED

Millie shared via Instagram that she’s been feeling stressed and dysregulated, though she didn’t disclose why.

Sharing snippets of herself at the spa enjoying skin treatments and soothing massages, the star penned: “I didn’t realise how much my nervous system had been carrying until I finally stopped.

“This week isn’t about doing more, it’s about unwinding. Listening. Letting my body feel safe enough to rest.

“I’ll share this experience gently, day by day…

“Have you ever felt like your body needed a pause before your mind did?“.

Only a matter of days after the post went live the couple announced they had parted ways.

THE BREAK UP

News of the break up flooded the internet today, despite it sounding like the pair’s relationship had been rocky for a while towards the end.

An insider speaking on the split told the Daily Mail: “Millie and Hugo are currently going through a separation and have sadly decided to split. 

“They have known each other for many years, and in recent weeks, have had serious conversations about their future, ultimately deciding it’s better for them both to part ways.

“Their main priority remains their children and family life, and separating is not something they ever hoped would happen.

“At present, they are considering what living apart might look like and how they plan to navigate co-parenting their young children.

“It’s been an incredibly difficult start to the year, and one they hope to continue managing in private.”

Millie and Hugo started dating in 2011 following their debut on E4 programme Made In Chelsea.

Though they split up not long after, and Millie went on to marry singer Professor Green in 2013.

After divorcing Professor Green in 2016, Millie and Hugo rekindled and wed in 2018, going on to welcome their two daughters.

Palestinian journalist Bisan Owda, who’s known for sharing the realities of life in Gaza, says she’s regained access to her TikTok. On Wednesday, she shared a video explaining that her account had been deleted, days after the platform was acquired by new investors in the US.

France is moving closer to banning social media for users under the age of 15, citing growing concerns over young people’s mental health. The move comes as other European countries consider similar restrictions. Al Jazeera’s Aly Zein Mohamed explains.

Jan. 27 (UPI) — Meta, Snap, TikTok and YouTube will face accusers in a series of lawsuits alleging that they intentionally design their platforms to be addictive.

The trials begin in Los Angeles Superior Court Tuesday, filed by a group of parents, teens and school districts. Once teens are addicted to the platforms, plaintiffs allege, they suffer from depression, self-harm, eating disorders and more. There are about 1,600 plaintiffs involving 350 families and 250 school districts.

“The fact that a social media company is going to have to stand trial before a jury … is unprecedented,” Matthew Bergman, founder of the Social Media Victims Law Center and an attorney in the cases, said in a press conference.

The first case involves a 19-year-old identified as KGM and her mother, Karen Glenn. They are suing TikTok, Meta and YouTube because they say the companies created addictive features that damaged her mental health and led to self-harm and suicidal ideation. Snap was also a defendant in the case, but it settled the case last week.

Her case’s outcome could help determine the outcomes of more than 1,000 injury cases against the companies. The case is expected to last several weeks.

The thousands of cases against these tech giants have been lumped together in a judicial council coordination proceeding, which allows California cases to collaborate and streamline pre-trial hearings.

The plaintiffs want financial damages as well as injunctions that would force the companies to change the design of their platforms and create industry-wide safety standards.

Top company executives are expected to testify, including Meta founder Mark Zuckerberg, Snap CEO Evan Spiegel, Instagram’s Adam Mosseri and more. Experts in online harm are also expected to testify.

“For parents whose children have been exploited, groomed, or died because of big tech platforms, the next six weeks are the first step toward accountability after years of being ignored by these companies,” Sarah Gardner, CEO of the Heat Initiative, which advocates for child safety online, told CNN. “These are the tobacco trials of our generation, and for the first time, families across the country will hear directly from big tech CEOs about how they intentionally designed their products to addict our kids.”

KGM alleges in court documents that on Instagram she was bullied and sextorted, which is when someone threatens to share explicit images of the victim unless they send money or more photos.

For two weeks, KGM’s friends and family had to ask other Instagram users to report the people targeting her before Meta would do something about it, court documents said.

“Defendants’ knowing and deliberate product design, marketing, distribution, programming and operational decision and conduct caused serious emotional and mental harms to K.G.M. and her family,” the suit said. “Those harms include, but are not limited to, dangerous dependency on their products, anxiety, depression, self-harm, and body dysmorphia.”

Tech companies and their CEOs reject the allegation that social media harms teens’ mental health. They argue that it offers a connection with friends and entertainment. They also lean on Section 230, a federal law that protects them from liability over content posted by users.

Jan. 27 (UPI) — Legislators in France took the first step toward becoming the first European country to block children from social media with a ban that would take effect at the beginning of the new school year in September.

National Assembly members voted 116-23 for the ban for children younger than 15, which was introduced by a lawmaker representing France’s Champagne region in President Emmanuel Macron‘s Renaissance party, late Monday.

The MPs amended the bill to empower the country’s media regulator to decide which social media services will be included in the ban and not limited to just those most popular with teens such as TikTok, Snapchat and Instagram.

The law would use an as-yet-undecided method of age-verification to block children from accessing those sites the regulator determines are most harmful to children’s mental and emotional health.

An existing smartphone ban for children in junior and middle schools would also be extended to high schools, under the legislation.

Children younger than 15 would be permitted to continue to use platforms on a second list deemed to pose less risk to them, but only if their parents give their consent.

Hailing the vote as a “major step,” Macron urged the Senate, the upper house, where it must also pass to become law, to follow suit and vowed to make sure it was implemented in time for the start of the fall semester.

“To ensure that this ban is effective from the start of the next academic year, I have asked the government to activate the accelerated procedure,” he posted on X.

“Because our children’s brains are not for sale. Not to American platforms, nor to Chinese networks. Because their dreams cannot be dictated by algorithms. Because we do not want an anxious generation,” Macron added.

Fastracking the law will enable it to leapfrog over a logjam in the assembly which has been unable to pass a budget for this year.

National Assembly Deputy Laure Miller, sponsor of the bill, complained afterward that opponents attempted to run the debate, which went on for almost seven hours, off the clock, knowing they would lose when it came to a vote.

“We explained everything to you, but you didn’t want to listen. Obstruction, off-topic remarks, conspiracy-laden speeches… above all, you tried everything to avoid having to vote on this text. Pathetic,” she wrote online.

Miller headed a committee probe into the psychological impact of social media on children that issued its report earlier this month.

MP Louis Boyard from the populist France Insoumise party said the bill had been rushed through.

By granting blanket verification powers to the government and the European Union to check the ages of all social media users, regardless of age, Macronist deputies were sleepwalking France into a surveillance state,” he said on X.

“The Macronists refused to respond or speak in order to have it voted on as quickly as possible. Under the pretext of banning social networks for those under 15, the Macronists seem to be preparing to have everyone monitored.”

He urged the Senate to send it back to the assembly to allow a “more enlightened” public debate to take place.

“The subject is too important to be rushed,” added Boyard, who represents a different district of the same region as Miller.

The development in France comes amid similar efforts being weighed across Europe, including in Greece, Spain, Denmark, Ireland, and Britain, where the House of Lords voted through a ban for children under 16 on Wednesday.

Lawmakers in the upper chamber of parliament passed the amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill by 261 votes to 150, however, the government signaled it intended to overturn the effort in the House of Commons, the lower house.

The move came two days after the government launched a consultation on a potential ban for under-16s in the wake of the lead taken by Australia, which last month became the first Western country to implement such a ban.

A writer for a right-wing website asked the White House spokesperson a leading question about the killing of Alex Pretti by immigration agents in Minnesota, prompting an attack on the “liberal biased media.”

Jan. 26 (UPI) — French President Emmanuel Macron wants children under the age of 15 off of social media by the start of the next school year and lawmakers are ready to consider it on Monday.

Parliament member Laure Miller will bring a bill to the table on Monday that would bar children under 15 from using social media. The bill would also ban smartphones from all high schools.

Miller headed the parliamentary committee that investigated the psychological effects of social media on children last year. The committee determined that exposure to social media can have an affect on mental health.

Macron has asked lawmakers to move quickly on the bill, hoping to see it in effect by the start of the next school year.

“Our children and teens’ brains are not for sale,” Macron said in a video statement. “Our children and teens’ emotions are not for sale or to be manipulated. Not by American platforms or Chinese algorithms.”

If the law passes, France would join Australia in restricting children’s access to social media. Australia enacted a social media ban for children under 16 years old in December.

Similar measures are being discussed throughout Europe.

Under France’s proposed law, its media regulators would draft a list of social media platforms to be banned outright for children under the age of 15. These would be the platforms that regulators consider the most harmful to the mental and emotional health of children.

Regulators would draft a second list of platforms that they consider less harmful. These sites would be accessible with the permission of a parent.

The bill’s first test is in parliament, which must approve the text. If the text passes, it will move to the Senate chamber in February.

France mulled a similar social media ban in 2023 but the courts ruled it did not comply with the laws of the European Union, specifically the Digital Services Act.

The guidelines of the Digital Services Act were loosened last year, giving governments more leeway to set age limits for social media use.