Latest news with #FirstAmendment
NDTV
2 hours ago
- Politics
- NDTV
How Badar Khan Suri Parented His Children From Immigration Detention Centre
Badar Khan Suri, the Georgetown University postdoctoral scholar, who had been arrested by immigration officers and faced deportation, had been in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement for months. He was arrested on the charges of "actively spreading Hamas propaganda and promoting antisemitism on social media." Khan Suri "has close connections to a known or suspected terrorist, who is a senior advisor to Hamas," Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said in March on X. He explained how he helped manage his 5-year-old sons to get to terms with his absence. He credited his wife, Maphaz Ahmad Yousef, and called her a "blessing", since she was the support system for their children. "For my younger twins, I created a story they could hold on to: I told them I was traveling and had gotten lost somewhere in the clouds, trying to find my way back home," Khan Suri said in an email to NBC News. He said he took efforts to parent his three children "with love, creativity and resilience" from afar, while at detention. It has been a month now since his release from the ICE facility in Texas, after a judge ruled that his detention violated the First Amendment right to free speech and the Fifth Amendment right to due process. "For my family also, I feel the power dynamic changed. I am no more the provider or protector I once was," he said. "But I have survivor's clarity, as I saw the injustice. I am rebuilding my journey with meaning and truth." He also reflected how parenting from detention was a "heartbreaking" experience but it "kept him going". He has now returned to his regular parenting days, bringing his kids to the bus stop, and said that he has earned the privilege of being identified as the favourite parent in the household. "Even the twins say 'Baba' when I ask who they love more," he joked. "Before, it was always a clear 'Mama.'" He described how the first week in custody was a "nightmare". "That night, my wife was only able to bring back my belongings. My elder son only saw my bag returning home and not me," he said of the night of his arrest. "I was sad for my children, who had lost their father, their security cover, their ease in life." He told how his children kept aside food for him, expecting him to show up any moment. "They would draw pictures for me, and even save cupcakes or slices of pizza for me as if I might come back at any moment - they refused to let anyone else touch my share." Although his younger sons felt comforted by the stories of him travelling through skies, his 9-year-old older son understood more and had become more withdrawn. "I tried to bring humour into our conversations when I could," he said. "I'd tell him I had a PlayStation 4, a basketball court and a soccer field where I was, and he would laugh and ask questions about them." Suri was not even provided a bed at the detention centre, and used to sleep in the TV room where the television played from 5am to 2am, according to the petition. He also received halal food only after 5 days. "On April 2, officers came and told him that he had complained through his lawyer about his religious accommodations and asked him for more details," the petition said. "After Dr. Khan Suri reaffirmed his needs, he was given a prayer mat, a Quran, and provided a space on a bed in the dorm, outside of the TV room." He was classified as "requiring high security" and had to wear a bright-red uniform. He was told he fell under the category of "with a known criminal group". "Due to his classification and security protocols at the facility, Dr. Khan Suri is only permitted two hours per week of recreation," the petition said. To cope with the difficult conditions at the detention centre, he said, "I would write about them, I would think about them - like when their school bus would come, when would it return, what they do during the day, what they were drawing," he said. "When I saw drawings by kids of other detainees, I felt the love for my children." On the morning of his release, he said, "When they saw me, all three were shouting with joy, hugging and kissing me," he said. "For the twins, I had finally come back from the 'clouds.'"
The Verge
4 hours ago
- Politics
- The Verge
The Supreme Court just upended internet law, and I have questions
Age verification is perhaps the hottest battleground for online speech, and the Supreme Court just settled a pivotal question: does using it to gate adult content violate the First Amendment in the US? For roughly the past 20 years the answer has been 'yes' — now, as of Friday, it's an unambiguous 'no.' Justice Clarence Thomas' opinion in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton is relatively straightforward as Supreme Court rulings go. To summarize, its conclusion is that: Around this string of logic, you'll find a huge number of objections and unknowns. Many of these were laid out before the decision: the Electronic Frontier Foundation has an overview of the issues, and 404 Media goes deeper on the potential consequences. With the actual ruling in hand, while people are working out the serious implications for future legal cases and the scale of the potential damage, I've got a few immediate, prosaic questions. Even the best age verification usually requires collecting information that links people (directly or indirectly) to some of their most sensitive web history, creating an almost inherent risk of leaks. The only silver lining is that current systems seem to at least largely make good-faith attempts to avoid intentional snooping, and legislation includes attempts to discourage unnecessary data retention. The problem is, proponents of these systems had the strongest incentives to make privacy-preserving efforts while age verification was still a contested legal issue. Any breaches could have undercut the claim that age-gating is harmless. Unfortunately, the incentives are now almost perfectly flipped. Companies benefit from collecting and exploiting as much data as they can. (Remember when Twitter secretly used two-factor authentication addresses for ad targeting?) Most state and federal privacy frameworks were weak even before federal regulatory agencies started getting gutted, and services may not expect any serious punishment for siphoning data or cutting security corners. Meanwhile, law enforcement agencies could quietly demand security backdoors for any number of reasons, including catching people viewing illegal material. Once you create those gaps, they leave everyone vulnerable. Will we see deliberate privacy invasions? Not necessarily! And many people will probably evade age verification altogether by using VPNs or finding sites that skirt the rules. But in an increasingly surveillance-happy world, it's a reasonable concern. Over the past couple of years Pornhub has prominently blocked access to a number of states, including Texas, in protest of local laws requiring age verification. Denying service has been one of the adult industry's big points of leverage, demonstrating one potential outcome of age verification laws, but even with VPN workarounds this tactic ultimately limits the site's reach and hurts its bottom line. The Supreme Court ruling cites 21 other states with rules similar to the Texas one, and now that this approach has been deemed constitutional, it's plausible more will follow suit. At a certain point Pornhub's parent company Aylo will need to weigh the costs and benefits, particularly if a fight against age verification looks futile — and the Supreme Court decision is a step in that direction. In the UK, Pornhub ceded territory on that very front a couple of days ago, agreeing (according to British regulator Ofcom) to implement 'robust' age verification by July 25th. The company declined comment to The Verge on the impact of FSC v. Paxton, but backing down wouldn't be a surprising move here. I don't ask this question with respect to the law itself — you can read the legal definitions within the text of the Texas law right here. I'm wondering, rather, how far Texas and other states think they can push those limits. If states stick to policing content that most people would classify as intentional porn or erotica, age-gating on Pornhub and its many sister companies is a given, along with other, smaller sites. Non-video but still sex-focused sites like fiction portal Literotica seem probably covered. More hypothetically, there are general-focus sites that happen to allow visual, text, and audio porn and have a lot of it, like 4chan — though a full one-third of the service being adult content is a high bar to clear. Beyond that, we're pretty much left speculating about how malicious state attorneys general might be. It's easy to imagine LGBTQ resources or sex education sites becoming targets despite having the exact kind of social value the law is supposed to exempt. (I'm not even getting into a federal attempt to redefine obscenity in general.) At this point, of course, it's debatable how much justification is required before a government can mount an attack on a website. Remember when Texas investigated Media Matters for fraud because it posted unflattering X screenshots? That was roughly the legal equivalent of Mad Libs, but the attorney general was mad enough to give it a shot. Age verification laws are, rather, tailor-made methods to take aim at any given site. The question 'What is porn?' is going to have a tremendous impact on the internet — not just because of what courts believe is obscene for minors, but because of what website operators believe the courts believe is obscene. This is a subtle distinction, but an important one. We know legislation limiting adult content has chilling effects, even when the laws are rarely used. While age verification rules were in flux, sites could reasonably delay making a call on how to handle them. But that grace period is over — seemingly for good. Many websites are going to start making fairly drastic decisions about what they host, where they operate, and what kind of user information they collect, based not just on hard legal decisions but on preemptive phantom versions of them. In the US, during an escalating push for government censorship, the balance of power has just tipped dramatically. We don't know how far it has left to go.
Bloomberg
7 hours ago
- Politics
- Bloomberg
Supreme Court's Porn Ruling Continues the Conservative Revolution
In a landmark 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court upheld age-verification requirements for accessing online pornography sites, effectively overturning a precedent that had stood for more than 20 years. Alongside its January decision on TikTok, the ruling marks a new era in the court's online First Amendment jurisprudence: the justices are increasingly willing to uphold government suppression of free speech for policy reasons. The opinion in the case, Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, was written by Justice Clarence Thomas, who, until recently, was something of a free speech absolutist. Thomas made it extremely clear that his goal was to find a way to uphold the Texas age-verification law at issue, regardless of precedent.
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
US Department of Justice sues Washington over ‘anti-Catholic' law
PORTLAND, Ore. (KOIN) – The United States Department of Justice is suing the State of Washington over a new law some have deemed 'anti-Catholic.' The lawsuit stems from , which requires clergy members to report child abuse and neglect, even if the information is shared with a priest during confession. The bill was signed into law by Washington Governor Bob Ferguson in May and takes effect July 27. On Monday, The DOJ filed a motion to intervene — or a motion to join — an existing lawsuit against the state that was filed by the Archdiocese of Seattle. These are the Pacific Northwest wines that won big at the 2025 Decanter World Wine Awards The DOJ argues that the Washington state law violates the free exercise of religion for all Catholics because it requires priests to break the confidentiality seal of confession, which could lead priests to be excommunicated from the Catholic Church. The DOJ claims this violates the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion and the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. 'Laws that explicitly target religious practices such as the Sacrament of Confession in the Catholic Church have no place in our society,' said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. Oregon appeals court finds gun forensics method is not 'scientifically valid' 'Senate Bill 5375 unconstitutionally forces Catholic priests in Washington to choose between their obligations to the Catholic Church and their penitents or face criminal consequences, while treating the priest-penitent privilege differently than other well-settled privileges. The Justice Department will not sit idly by when States mount attacks on the free exercise of religion,' Dhillon added. The Justice Department's motion to intervene is pending before the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington in Tacoma. In a statement to KOIN 6 News in response to the DOJ's suit, Governor Ferguson said, 'It is disappointing, but not surprising, to see the DOJ seek to shield and protect child abusers.' Close Thanks for signing up! Watch for us in your inbox. Subscribe Now A spokesperson for Washington Attorney General Nick Brown told KOIN 6 News that Brown's office does not comment on most pending litigation, noting they are reviewing the complaint and will respond in court. Washington State Senator Noel Frame (D-Seattle), who is the prime sponsor of SB 5375, added, 'We must take every step possible to make sure kids are safe. That's why I championed this bill and that's why it passed with bipartisan support. This law brings us in line with the majority of other states that require clergy to be mandatory reporters of abuse and neglect. We also join six other states – including Texas and Oklahoma – that require the reporting of abuse learned during penitential communication, including confession.' 'Whether you're from a red state or a blue state, keeping kids safe from abuse should be a non-partisan issue,' Frame continued. Portland bar hosts 'In Bed By 10' happy hour DJ parties The DOJ's filing comes after the Archdiocese of Seattle filed a lawsuit against Washington over the law, with Archbishop Paul D. Etienne releasing a statement in May threatening to excommunicate Catholic clergy who follow the law. Archbishop Etienne cited Acts 5:29, 'We must obey God rather than men,' saying, 'this is our stance now in the face of this new law. Catholic clergy may not violate the seal of confession – or they will be excommunicated from the Church. All Catholics must know and be assured that their confessions remain sacred, secure, confidential and protected by the law of the Church.' The Archbishop added that the church agrees with protecting children and preventing child abuse, noting the Archdiocese of Seattle already has mandatory reporter policies for priests. However, those rules don't apply to information received during confession. 'Transformational partnership': Pac-12 reaches deal with CBS for football, men's basketball games 'During Confession, penitent Catholics confess aloud their sins to a Catholic priest, asking God for forgiveness,' the lawsuit argues. 'The seal of confidentiality is, therefore, the lifeblood of Confession. Without it, the free exercise of the Catholic religion, i.e. the apostolic duties performed by the Catholic priest to the benefit of Catholic parishioners, cannot take place.' Meanwhile, others argue that the law is not 'anti-Catholic,' rather, the law is focused on protecting children and getting abusers off the streets. In a phone call with KOIN 6 News, Mary Dispenza — representing the Pacific Northwest branch of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests — said it is 'absurd that they would file a suit' because SB 5375 is advocating to protect children. 'It's hard for me to believe that a bishop would file a suit,' Dispenza said, adding that the bill 'is not anti-Catholic. It's the best of Catholicism.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
NBC News
8 hours ago
- Politics
- NBC News
How Georgetown scholar Badar Khan Suri parented his three kids while in ICE detention
For months while in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody, Badar Khan Suri, the Georgetown University postdoctoral scholar who was targeted for deportation by the Trump administration, said he spun a tale for his 5-year-old sons to help them cope with his absence. 'For my younger twins, I created a story they could hold on to: I told them I was traveling and had gotten lost somewhere in the clouds, trying to find my way back home,' Khan Suri said in an email to NBC News. It was one of the ways, Khan Suri said, that he attempted to continue to parent his three children 'with love, creativity and resilience' from detention. Now, just over a month since his release from an ICE facility in Texas, Khan Suri reflected on his experience with family separation, one that he said took a significant toll on his wife and children. Khan Suri credits his wife, Maphaz Ahmad Yousef, with being a critical support system for their children, calling her a 'blessing.' However, he's still processing the pain of separation, he said. 'For my family also, I feel the power dynamic changed. I am no more the provider or protector I once was,' he said. 'But I have survivor's clarity, as I saw the injustice. I am rebuilding my journey with meaning and truth.' Parenting from detention, he said, 'was one of the most heartbreaking parts of my experience — but also the one that kept me going.' These days, Khan Suri — who was released last month after a judge ruled that his detention violated the First Amendment right to free speech and the Fifth Amendment right to due process — said his children have been enjoying life with both their parents at home. He said he has returned to some quintessential dad duties including bringing his kids to the bus stop, and he's earned the privilege of being identified as the favorite parent in the household. 'Even the twins say 'Baba' when I ask who they love more,' he joked. 'Before, it was always a clear 'Mama.'' But three months ago, Khan Suri was pulled away from his family when he was arrested outside his Arlington, Virginia, home and accused by the Department of Homeland Security of 'actively spreading Hamas propaganda and promoting antisemitism on social media.' He was never formally charged with a crime. Khan Suri 'has close connections to a known or suspected terrorist, who is a senior advisor to Hamas,' DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said in March on X. His attorney Hassan Ahmad has repeatedly denied that he ever made pro-Hamas or antisemitic statements. Khan Suri's father-in-law, Ahmed Yousef, was an adviser to a now-deceased Hamas leader. Yousef said he left his position more than a decade ago and he has since become a critic of Hamas. Khan Suri described the first week in ICE custody as a 'nightmare.' 'That night, my wife was only able to bring back my belongings. My elder son only saw my bag returning home and not me,' he said of the night of his arrest. 'I was sad for my children, who had lost their father, their security cover, their ease in life.' He had been moved across multiple facilities and three states, finally landing in Prairieland Detention Center in Alvarado, Texas. However, as Khan Suri's detention stretched on, he said, he aimed to maintain some semblance of lightness for his family. During their occasional phone calls home, Khan Suri said he made sure his youngest children absorbed his tall tale about the clouds. 'When I first had the chance to speak with them, I repeated that same story,' he said. 'They would draw pictures for me, and even save cupcakes or slices of pizza for me as if I might come back at any moment — they refused to let anyone else touch my share.' While his youngest sons believed he had been journeying through the skies, Khan Suri said his oldest child had picked up on bits and pieces of his situation. And while at the facility, the father said, he had attempted to paint a more positive picture of the conditions he was living in, particularly as his 9-year-old became more withdrawn. 'I tried to bring humor into our conversations when I could,' he said. 'I'd tell him I had a PlayStation 4, a basketball court and a soccer field where I was, and he would laugh and ask questions about them.' According to Khan Suri's habeas petition, he wasn't assigned a bed in a dorm when he first arrived at the facility. Instead, he was placed in the detention's 'TV room,' where the television runs every day from 5 a.m. to 2 a.m., according to the petition. Khan Suri had also requested religious accommodations and only received halal food after five days, the documents said. 'On April 2, officers came and told him that he had complained through his lawyer about his religious accommodations and asked him for more details,' the petition said. 'After Dr. Khan Suri reaffirmed his needs, he was given a prayer mat, a Quran, and provided a space on a bed in the dorm, outside of the TV room.' He was also issued a bright-red uniform, usually reserved for individuals classified as requiring high security due to their criminal history, the petition said. When he inquired about the uniform, Khan Suri was told that he fell under the category due to his association 'with a known criminal group — presumably based on Respondents' unfounded claims of his connections to Hamas,' the petition said. 'Due to his classification and security protocols at the facility, Dr. Khan Suri is only permitted two hours per week of recreation,' the petition said. Khan Suri said he kept his children front of mind in order to cope with the circumstances, as well. 'I would write about them, I would think about them — like when their school bus would come, when would it return, what they do during the day, what they were drawing,' he said. 'When I saw drawings by kids of other detainees, I felt the love for my children.' After he was released following the judge's ruling that the government had failed to provide evidence that Khan Suri was a flight risk or a danger to the community, he said the reunion with his children was joyful. 'In the morning, I woke up before them. When they saw me, all three were shouting with joy, hugging and kissing me,' he said. 'For the twins, I had finally come back from the 'clouds.''
