Freedom of speech

Subterms

    More stories

    • 213 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump is using antisemitism as a pretext for a war on the first amendment | Judith Levine

      by

      On Saturday night, agents of the Department of Homeland Security arrested and detained the Columbia University graduate Mahmoud Khalil. He is still in Ice custody in a remote Louisiana lockup known for extreme human rights violations, from denial of food and water to medical “care” verging on torture.Khalil, a Palestinian Syrian, emerged as a leader in Columbia’s Gaza solidarity encampment last year and a level-headed negotiator with university officials on behalf of the student protesters. Married to a US citizen, he holds a green card. Neither his American wife, who is eight months pregnant, nor his lawyers were warned of the arrest or told where he would be held.The importance of Khalil’s arrest cannot be overstated. The state entered the home of a legal US resident, seized and imprisoned him and are now trying to deport him on criminal charges of abetting terrorism – for exercising his constitutional right to free speech.This is not the first time in American history that immigrants have been deported or US citizens persecuted for nonviolent political expression deemed dangerous by the government. But it is the first such arrest by an authoritarian regime determined to eliminate its perceived enemies. It will not be the last.Khalil’s ordeal should come as no surprise. The Trump administration announced recently it would revoke the student visas and green cards of “Hamas sympathizers” – AKA supporters of Palestinian liberation.But Trump has long prepared for this moment. As one of his first acts as president in January 2017, he realized his campaign promise to impose “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States” in a series of executive orders banning entrance of travelers from seven predominantly Muslim countries and suspending the resettlement of Syrian refugees. The first two orders, both called “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States”, were struck down as unconstitutional; a third revision passed muster.At the same time, rightwing supporters of Israel were working to equate criticism of Israel with antisemitism. And since criticism of Israel is equated with sympathy with its enemies, and Israel’s enemies are blanketly tarred as terrorists, antisemitism could also be elided with terrorism.In 2018, a bipartisan Antisemitism Awareness Act (AAA) was introduced in the House with 51 co-sponsors. Its purpose: to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism in enforcing Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination by institutions receiving federal funding. The bill referred to the IHRA’s “contemporary examples of antisemitism” as potentially useful evidence of discriminatory intent. But it did not spell out its most politically useful example of antisemitism: that is, criticism of Israel.The AAA was not signed into law, but in December 2019 the White House issued Executive Order 13899, “Combating Anti-Semitism”, to carry it out. Looking back, the document looks almost cautious. As Congress did in its bill, the White House added a caveat: “Agencies shall not diminish or infringe upon any right protected under Federal law or under the First Amendment.”The 2019 order was a premonition; it didn’t see much use. Anyway, with his characterization of the Nazis marching it Charlottesville as “very fine people” fresh in mind, the president had little credibility with Jews. But now Trump is taking action. One of the executive orders to come off his desk just hours after inauguration was “Protecting the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats”. The order both elaborates on the Muslim ban and defines the threats more vaguely – thus, more easily attacked.The US must institute “vigilant” vetting of visa applicants, the document says, as well as “aliens” already legally in the country, to ensure that they “do not bear hostile attitudes toward its citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles, and do not advocate for, aid, or support designated foreign terrorists and other threats to our national security”. The order also seeks to protect the US against foreigners “who preach . . . sectarian violence [or] the overthrow or replacement of the culture on which our constitutional Republic stands”. Aside from material support for terrorists, the rest is constitutionally protected speech.At the end of the month came “Additional Measures to Combat Antisemitism” expanding EO 13899 in light of “an unprecedented wave of vile anti-Semitic discrimination, vandalism, and violence” since the Hamas-led attacks of 7 October 2023. Homing in on schools and colleges, it instructs authorities to use “all available and appropriate legal tools, to prosecute, remove, or otherwise hold to account the perpetrators of unlawful anti-Semitic harassment and violence”. Again, harassment and violence are not defined. And this time there is no mention of the first amendment.The president’s orders on antisemitism, like most of his orders, were also presaged by a plan from the Heritage Foundation: Project Esther, published on the first anniversary of 7 October, aims to vanquish the “virulently anti-Israel, anti-Zionist, and anti-American ‘pro-Palestinian movement’” it calls the “Hamas Support Network”. The so-called “Hamas Support Network” is not only “trying to compel the US government to abandon” Israel; it is bent on no less than “the destruction of capitalism and democracy”.The detailed strategy touts a list of 856 professors at more than 240 universities in the US and Canada who have “openly advocated or supported up to 63 different HSOs [Hamas Support Organizations]”; it indicts, by name, the progressive lawmakers (some of them Jews) who belong to an “active cabal of Jew-haters, Israel-haters, and America-haters in Washington”. It itemizes the myriad “Hamas Support Organizations” from which it would wrest first amendment protection, including Jewish Voice for Peace.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionProject Esther’s methods are classically McCarthyist: “We must conduct legal, private research and investigation to uncover criminal wrongdoing. We must conduct audits, both academic and financial. We must conduct information campaigns that are designed to illuminate and expose – ‘name and shame’ – to undermine HSN and HSO members’ credibility.” The president’s cabinet can’t wait to start.We have been here long before Trump. The Alien Enemies Act of 1798, passed by a Congress fearful that noncitizens would take the enemy’s side in a war against the French, allowed the president to deport those deemed dangerous. The accompanying Sedition Act criminalized the publication – or utterance – of “any false, scandalous, and malicious writing” against the government.The Alien Registration Act (or Smith Act) of 1940 imposed sentences of up to 20 years for advocacy – as defined by the state – of the violent overthrow of the US government. It also required noncitizens – presumed proponents of violent overthrow – to register with the government. During the second world war, more than 5 million immigrants registered; 900,000 of them were deported as “enemy aliens”.Unless it is repealed, no law is dead. During the cold war, the FBI deployed a 1918 immigration law to imprison and deport foreign-born anarchists, communists, union organizers and pacifists. In his last days as Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer, weakly flogged the Antisemitism Awareness Act, again without success. In February, when the homeland security secretary, Kristi Noem, announced that the agency would require immigrants to register so it could “track … and compel them to leave the country voluntarily”, she invoked the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. In his inaugural address, Trump vowed to revive the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. This week, he reinstated the Muslim ban.To be clear, the Trump administration is not interested in combating antisemitism.Elon Musk does Nazi salutes. The Pentagon’s new deputy press secretary, Kingsley Wilson, is accused of spreading antisemitic conspiracy theories. The health and human services secretary, Robert F Kennedy Jr, has claimed that Covid-19 was “ethnically targeted” to spare Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese people. The FBI has announced it will relax investigation of neo-Nazi terrorist cells, which have been regrouping since the president’s pardon of the January 6 insurrectionists, to focus on the surveillance of leftwing organizations including Black Lives Matter and the imaginary formation it calls Antifa.Antisemitism is the pretext for Trump’s interlocking multi-front wars on the first amendment, immigrants and higher education. Khalil is a well-known figure with good lawyers. He will hopefully be released. But his arrest is the opening act in a theatre of deportation that will become more and more real and real for unnumbered others who will disappear without petitions, support committees or press coverage.

      Judith Levine is a Brooklyn journalist and essayist, a contributing writer to the Intercept and the author of five books More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      UN human rights chief ‘deeply worried by fundamental shift’ in US

      by

      The UN human rights chief has warned of a “fundamental shift” in the US and sounded the alarm over the growing power of “unelected tech oligarchs”, in a stinging rebuke of Washington weeks into Donald Trump’s presidency.Volker Türk said there had been bipartisan support for human rights in the US for decades but said he was “now deeply worried by the fundamental shift in direction that is taking place domestically and internationally”.Without referring to Trump by name, Türk, an Austrian lawyer who heads the UN’s rights body, criticised the Republican president’s measures to overturn longstanding equity and anti-discrimination policies, as well as repeated threats against the media and politicians.“In a paradoxical mirror image, policies intended to protect people from discrimination are now labelled as discriminatory. Progress is being rolled back on gender equality,” Türk said in comments to the UN human rights council in Geneva.“Disinformation, intimidation and threats, notably against journalists and public officials, risk undermining the work of independent media and the functioning of institutions,” he added. “Divisive rhetoric is being used to distort, deceive and polarise. This is generating fear and anxiety among many.”Since returning to power, Trump has continued to attack the press. Last month, he barred the Associated Press news agency – on which local and international media have traditionally relied for US government reporting – from the White House.His administration has launched a purge of anti-discrimination policies under the umbrella term of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), and moved to slash rights for transgender people. At the same time, the administration has sent panic through communities with its widespread and muddled immigration crackdown.Internationally, the US has moved to withdraw funding for international organisations that promote health and human rights, such as the World Health Organization, and imposed economic sanctions on the international criminal court, which is investigating war crimes in Gaza.Washington’s traditional allies, including Canada, France and Germany, are feeling increasingly alarmed as Trump lashes out at democratic leaders while expressing a fondness for autocrats, including the Russian president, Vladimir Putin.In his speech on Monday, Türk presented a concerned overview of the global rights situation, saying the world was “going through a period of turbulence and unpredictability”.“[What] we are experiencing goes to the very core of the international order – an order that has brought us an unprecedented level of global stability. We cannot allow the fundamental global consensus around international norms and institutions, built painstakingly over decades, to crumble before our eyes.”He called out the growing influence wielded by “a handful of unelected tech oligarchs” who “have our data: they know where we live, what we do, our genes and our health conditions, our thoughts, our habits, our desires and our fears”.Türk added: “They know how to manipulate us.”While his comments were not directed at the US, they come at a time of rising and consolidated power among American tech and social media billionaires who have fallen in line behind Trump.They include Elon Musk, who owns X and has been the 78-year-old president’s most prominent backer, but also Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg, who has ended factchecking programmes on Facebook and Instagram – a move the UN chief, António Guterres, has warned will open the “floodgates to more hate, more threats, and more violence”.Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, the world’s third-richest man and owner of the Washington Post, which in the last US presidential election declined to endorse a candidate for the first time in decades, recently banned opinion articles that did not support his views on “personal liberties and free markets”.Türk, whose comments were not limited to the situation in the US but could also apply to tech leaders in China and India, said that “any form of unregulated power can lead to oppression, subjugation, and even tyranny – the playbook of the autocrat”. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      US House votes to pass antisemitism bill in response to campus protests

      by

      The US House of Representatives has voted to pass an antisemitism awareness bill, a controversial measure sponsored by a New York Republican amid controversy over pro-Palestinian protests on college campuses in Manhattan and across the US, as Israel’s war with Hamas drags on.The bill passed 320-91 with some bipartisan support.Mike Lawler’s bill will “provide for the consideration of a definition of antisemitism set forth by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance for the enforcement of federal anti-discrimination laws concerning education programs or activities, and for other purposes”.Democrats opposed it as a messaging bill meant simply to boost Republicans on a hot-button issue and trap Democrats into taking politically awkward votes.The American Civil Liberties Union opposed the bill, telling members: “Federal law already prohibits antisemitic discrimination and harassment by federally funded entities.“[The bill] is therefore not needed to protect against antisemitic discrimination; instead, it would likely chill free speech of students on college campuses by incorrectly equating criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism.”The Foundation for Middle East Peace (FMEP), which “works to ensure a just, secure and peaceful future for Palestinians and Israelis”, has defined the shifting meaning of “antisemitism” in US political discourse.“Traditionally,” the FMEP says, “‘antisemitism’ has meant hostility and prejudice toward Jews because they are Jews – a scourge that has imperiled Jews throughout history, and is a source of resurgent threats to Jews today.“In recent years there has been an energetic effort to redefine the term to mean something else. This new definition – known today as the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s ‘working definition of antisemitism’, is explicitly politicised, refocusing the term to encompass not only hatred of Jews, but also hostility toward and criticism of the modern state of Israel.”In the House on Tuesday morning, the Illinois Republican Mary E Miller acted as speaker pro tempore to oversee debate on the Republican antisemitism awareness bill.As a choice, it was not without irony. Miller made headlines in 2021, when as a newly elected member of Congress she was forced to apologise after saying in a speech at the Capitol: “Hitler was right on one thing. He said, ‘Whoever has the youth has the future.’ Our children are being propagandised.”Representatives for Miller did not respond to a Guardian request for comment.Introducing the bill with Lawler sitting beside her, Michelle Fischbach, a Minnesota Republican, said: “Jewish college students have faced increasing antisemitism. And since 7 October there has been an over 300% increase in incidents on campuses.”More than 1,100 people were killed on 7 October, when Hamas attacked Israel. More than 34,000 people have been killed in Gaza during the subsequent Israeli offensive.Fischbach continued: “Students are supposed to be protected from harassment. But it has been made abundantly clear that the leaders of these institutions are not going to do anything to stop it. Instead, they are allowing large-scale harassment to reign, forcing Jewish students to stay home. Since these institutions refuse to protect their students, it is time for Congress to take action.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionTeresa Leger Fernandez, a Democrat from New Mexico, spoke in answer to Fischbach. She quoted Thomas Massie, a rightwing Republican from Kentucky, as saying the bill was “a political trap … designed to split the Democrat [sic] party and get them stuck” on an issue over which the party is divided.Leger Fernandez also said a different bill should be considered, to “designate a senior official at the [US] Department of Education to combat antisemitism on college campuses”.In his own remarks, Lawler listed alleged outrages on college campuses and said: “We must give the Department of Education the tools to identify and prosecute any antisemitic hate crimes committed and hold college administrators accountable for refusing to address antisemitism on their campuses.”Democrats, he said, were “tripping over themselves because of electoral politics” in states with large Muslim populations which traditionally vote Democratic.Debate then descended into back-and-forth over whether the bill was necessary to defend Jewish students, as Republicans claimed, or an illegitimate attack on free speech, however abhorrent that speech might be, as some Democrats said.In closing, Leger Fernandez said: “We need to remind everybody we all condemn 7 October. We all have condemned Hamas as a terrorist organisation.“We have taken up these resolutions over and over again. And once again, our Republican colleague [Massie] has spoken the truth when he has said that these are sticky resolutions simply intended to divide the Democrats.“Let’s not work on division. Let’s come together in love, and in belief, and [use] our individual strength to push back against the hatred that we see, and to do it in a manner that is not partisan.” More

    • 213 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      USC vetoed a Muslim student’s graduation speech for her pro-Palestinian views. Why? | Mohammed Zain Shafi Khan

      by

      When Asna Tabassum, a hijab-wearing Muslim, was announced as the valedictorian for the University of Southern California class of 2024, my initial reaction was the thought of my south Asian mother saying, “What are you doing? Why aren’t you valedictorian?” But what followed was pride.Then the university announced last week that it would no longer allow Tabassum to speak at commencement. After pro-Israel groups mischaracterized Tabassum’s pro-Palestinian views as “antisemitic”, the USC administration claimed that security concerns made her speech untenable.“I am not surprised by those who attempt to propagate hatred,” Tabassum, a friend of mine, wrote in a statement. “I am surprised that my own university – my home for four years – has abandoned me.”USC has not just abandoned an accomplished student, but also nearly 1,000 Muslims on campus. I happen to be one of them.Right now, the reality of being a Muslim student is intertwined with the university’s decision to rescind Tabassum’s well-earned honour. We were teased by our institution, taunted even, as they refuse to publicly stand by their choice.As a Muslim, the lack of support scares me. My hijab-wearing friends have been called terrorists and spat at; my Palestinian peer has had their car broken into and their Qur’an torn and I am judged for wearing a keffiyeh to class or having a sticker on my laptop that reads “Free Palestine”.When Arab and Muslim students are directly affected, the university’s silence makes its position clear.When the office of the president can release a statement condemning Hamas’s attack on Israel on 7 October, but not one condemning Israel for killing tens of thousands of Palestinians, it makes the university’s position clear.And when the university refuses to publicly support its choice for valedictorian, again the school’s position is clear.Understandably, students and faculty are upset and angry. Last Friday, 11 members of the USC advisory committee on Muslim life resigned “in protest against the university administration’s decision to revoke Asna Tabassum’s valedictory address at commencement”.This committee was convened by the president “to consider a number of tangible solutions to support Muslim students, faculty and staff”. But now, when USC cannot support one student, I doubt it wants to support any of us.This is what it is to be Muslim at a college campus: enraged, scared and robbed of the hope that Tabassum represents. As a student, I placed my trust in this institution that has taught me, but that trust has waned.As a journalist, I am also alarmed. This profession, this institution, and its foundation are based upon the free exchange of ideas and the freedom to share those ideas. The cowardice of hiding behind the veil of “safety concerns” is appalling. Furthermore, California’s Leonard Law stipulates that even private universities like USC are obliged to uphold speech protected by the first amendment.USC seems to not just be above the law, but also hypocritical. Just last semester, the Turkish ambassador and Azerbaijani consul-general were on campus as part of an event hosted by the university during the height of Azerbaijan’s military campaign against the majority-Armenian region of Artsakh, also known as Nagorno Karabakh. The Armenian community on campus was facing tragedy, watching their people being starved and mourning their loss.When students demanded that the university, especially at such a time, rescind its invitation to the delegation, the university refused, arguing that doing so would infringe the delegation’s freedom to speak.The provost’s office sent out an email about USC’s commitment to academic freedom, writing: “These freedoms are outlined within the USC policy on free speech and serve to protect the viewpoints – no matter how controversial or unpopular – of all members of our community.” In response to the protests, the university also increased security for the delegation – an option the university failed to provide Tabassum.Freedom of speech was protected then. Just not now.While the university may have made its decision, the students have made one for themselves too: “Let her speak.” Over 300 students recently marched in solidarity with Tabassum, demanding that the USC administration reinvite the valedictorian to speak at commencement. The university did just the opposite. With a decision that has enraged the class of 2024, USC has instead “released” all its outside speakers from speaking during the main commencement ceremony. This means that keynote speaker Jon M Chu will not be speaking at commencement. Tabassum will not be speaking at commencement. The only person who will be speaking is Carol Folt, USC’s president. And, respectfully, no graduate who has worked tirelessly for four years wants to just hear from the president.Instead of emailing students about this change, the administration simply updated the commencement website and posted an Instagram story.If the aim of the university is to maintain the safety and security of its 65,000 graduation attendees, it may have achieved that. Because, in all fairness, who is going to attend this graduation now, and for what? Graduating students are not represented, they are not excited and right now they are angry – even more so given that many of them never had their high school graduation, due to Covid.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionBut all of the above is moot at this point. The university has now gone further and announced that it has simply canceled the main stage graduation ceremony – again citing unnamed safety concerns following a day of peaceful protest that only turned violent with the university-sanctioned introduction of law enforcement.But if the university can promptly expel hundreds of non-violent protesters from campus less than 24 hours after their occupation began, how is it possible that the best a university that charges nearly $70,000 per year could do is cancel the entire event?I refuse to believe these choices were about security. From the start, it’s been about restricting Tabassum from speaking. It’s been about USC failing to stand up for its Muslim, Arab and Palestinian students.The university has chosen to be on the wrong side of history. It can start repairing some of the harm done by prioritizing the needs of its students over protecting its president.USC hasn’t listened to its Muslim students, its Arab students or its Palestinian students when we asked for the university to figure out a way to let Asna Tabassum speak safely. By ignoring our voice, as it did Tabassum’s, USC has silenced us all.For this and many other hasty decisions taken by the university these past two weeks, it’s clear what the next decision should be: let Carol Folt go.
      Mohammed Zain Shafi Khan is a journalist and student at the University of Southern California studying international relations and journalism More

    • 213 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      With $1.6bn at stake, Fox News is suddenly interested in freedom of the press | Margaret Sullivan

      by

      As it tries to defend itself against the accusation that it knowingly spread lies about the 2020 presidential election, Fox News has touted some lofty notions about the role of journalism in a democratic society.“There will be a lot of noise and confusion generated by Dominion and their opportunistic private equity owners,” said a recent company statement, “but the core of this case remains about freedom of the press and freedom of speech, which are fundamental rights afforded by the Constitution and protected by New York Times v Sullivan.”The background, of course, is that Dominion Voting Systems is seeking $1.6bn in damages from the media giant, arguing that Fox News spread damaging falsehoods purporting that the voting machine company rigged the election to defeat Donald Trump. Dominion intends to show that network representatives at the highest levels – right up to Fox News’s founder, Rupert Murdoch – knew that this was utter nonsense, that the election was valid, and that their primary concern was not truth-telling but appeasing their disappointed pro-Trump audience.Don’t get me wrong. I believe press rights belong to a wide spectrum of media organizations, whatever their political leanings.But Fox’s reliance on first amendment protections – while part of a legal strategy that may prove successful in court – is the height of hypocrisy. America’s founders believed it was essential that American citizens be well-informed about the behavior of public officials and other powerful entities, and thus be capable of self-governance.The recent revelations from court filings, however, make it clear that such a noble mission was far from top of mind at Fox, not just in the aftermath of the 2020 election but going back years.Take, for example, one of the network’s biggest stars, Sean Hannity, who ventured far outside the bounds of journalistic norms when he appeared with Trump at a 2018 campaign rally. (Fox brass, normally tolerant of their stars’ excesses, went so far as to reprimand him.)Hannity, who has stated that he’s not a journalist, has played the role of a Trump insider – even an informal adviser to Republican officials. Recall his January 2021 text message to former chief of staff Mark Meadows and Republican congressman Jim Jordan: “Guys, we have a clear path to land the plane in 9 days,” apparently referring to persuading Trump to conclude his presidency peacefully before inauguration day.“When Hannity advised the president about the ongoing insurrection he did not do so as a journalist but as an ally, a confederate, a teammate, rather than an umpire or observer,” the famed first amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams told me last year, characterizing this as “non-journalistic behavior, in fact almost the precise opposite of journalistic behavior”.And given Fox’s clear reliance on the landmark press-rights case Times v Sullivan, why haven’t its journalists grilled their new heartthrob, the Florida governor, Ron DeSantis, about his newsworthy desire to weaken the journalistic protection it provides?DeSantis wants the courts to revisit Times v Sullivan, but somehow this doesn’t get the attention of Fox News interviewers. His alarming views on that landmark decision, which established a higher bar for defamation lawsuits involving public figures, haven’t provoked a single challenge in his 12 Fox appearances this year, according to a Media Matters for America database.Initially, Fox even forbade its own Howard Kurtz, who hosts a weekly show on the news media, from covering the Dominion case. After Kurtz, to his credit, publicly expressed his disagreement with that prohibition, and after plenty of outside criticism followed, the bosses relented long enough last weekend to let him discuss the case and call it a test of the first amendment.Meanwhile, Fox hosts for years have urged their grievance-hungry audience to despise journalists. (Granted, over the years, Fox has sometimes filed “friend of the court” briefs in support of other media outlets.)Rants against the media are a mainstay for personalities like Laura Ingraham, who drops disparaging phrases like “leftwing media hacks” and “regime media” into her segments.But it took Tucker Carlson – the very face of Fox News – to go further in a 2021 interview, calling mainstream journalists “cringing animals not worthy of respect”.“It just makes me sick. I really hate them,” said Carlson, who more recently has been busy portraying the violent insurrection on 6 January 2021 as a largely peaceful protest or even a friendly tourist visit.Yet somehow, when it comes time to defend the network’s profit-driven willingness to circulate lies, Fox News is eager to claim solidarity with those supposedly despicable cowards. Now, you see, it’s all about journalists standing together, arm-in-arm, on the very underpinnings of American democracy.I’m all for press rights and for applying them broadly. But somehow, I don’t think this was what the founders had in mind.Fox News doesn’t deserve the second word in its name.
      Margaret Sullivan is a Guardian US columnist writing on media, politics and culture More

    • 200 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Ron DeSantis has his next target in his sights: freedom of the press | Trevor Timm

      by

      Ron DeSantis has his next target in his sights: freedom of the pressTrevor TimmFlorida’s rightwing governor and legislature want to gut one of the United States’ most important first amendment rulingsRon DeSantis, the Florida governor, and his cronies, not content with destroying free speech in public schools, have set for themselves a new target: destroying press freedom and every Floridian’s right to criticize public officials. Along the way, they aim to overturn the most important first amendment US supreme court decision of the 20th century.The latest bill to raise eyebrows sounds like it’s made up by the opponents of Florida Republicans to make them sound ridiculous. Unfortunately, it’s real. The proposed law, authored by state legislator Jason Brodeur, would – I kid you not – compel “bloggers” who criticize the governor, other officers of the executive branch, or members of the legislature to register with the state of Florida. Under the bill, anyone paid to write on the internet would have to file monthly reports every time they utter a government official’s name in a critical manner. If not, they’d face potentially thousands of dollars in fines.Banning ideas and authors is not a ‘culture war’ – it’s fascism | Jason StanleyRead moreIt’s a policy so chilling that it would make Vladimir Putin proud, and I wish that was hyperbole. In 2014, Russia’s autocratic leader signed a very similar provision, then known as the “blogger’s law”. As the Verge explained at the time, “under it, any blogger with more than 3,000 readers is required to register with the Roskomnadzor, Russia’s media oversight agency”.As despotic as this proposed Florida blogger law may be, it’s also so laughably absurd, and so unconstitutional on its face, that it’s hard to imagine even DeSantis’s rubber-stamp legislature would pass it. As Charles C Cooke recently wrote, “Senator Jason Brodeur is a moron, but he’s a solo moron” with no apparent further support here. One would hope. But the blogger blacklist bill may be useful for another reason: as an attention-grabbing sideshow, to take heat off another free speech-destroying proposal that has DeSantis’s explicit backing – this one aimed at a bedrock principle of press freedom in the United States.For the past few weeks, while his new Orwellian higher education rules have been getting the lion’s share of attention, DeSantis has also been on the warpath against New York Times v Sullivan, the landmark supreme court decision from the early 1960s that set the bar for defamation law in this country – and gave newspapers and citizens alike wide latitude to investigate and criticize government officials.Many legal scholars consider it the most important first amendment decision of the last century. It is one of the primary reasons newspapers in the US can aggressively report on public officials and powerful wealthy individuals without the constant fear that they are going to be sued out of existence. And up until a few years ago, when Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch started criticizing it, everyone assumed it was settled law.Recently, DeSantis staged a dramatic “roundtable” discussion to present to the public that he was now invested in changing Florida defamation law for “the little guys”, “the run-of-the-mill citizens”, the ordinary folk who don’t have “thick skin” like his. He then proceeded to use the majority of the presentation to rail against New York Times v Sullivan, which of course doesn’t apply to “the little guys” at all – only to powerful public figures like him.A few days later, DeSantis’s allies in Florida’s legislature introduced bills that would fulfill his wish and directly violate the Sullivan supreme court ruling. In their original draft, the law’s authors made no attempt to hide their disdain for the bedrock first amendment decision either. They called it out directly in the bill’s preamble, bizarrely stating that the unanimous decision from almost 60 years ago “bears no relation to the text, structure, or history of the first amendment to the United States constitution”. (That sentence was later deleted in the next version.)While the Florida house and senate version vary slightly in specifics, even the “tamer” senate version – introduced by the very same state senator Brodeur – guts almost every aspect of journalists’ rights. Here’s just a partial list of what the bills aim to do:
      Kill off a large part of Florida’s journalist “shield bill”, which protects reporters from being forced to testify in court.
      Presume any news report written with anonymous sources is defamation.
      Roll back Florida’s anti-Slapp law, which ironically protects “little guys” like independent newspapers when they are sued by wealthy individuals for the primary purpose of bankrupting them.
      Weaken the “actual malice” standard from Sullivan, to make it easier for public officials to sue newspapers or critics.
      Now, can states just pass laws that blatantly ignore supreme court precedent? Of course not. Any responsible judge would strike this down as unconstitutional right away. But DeSantis may be hoping for a friendly appeals court ruling from a Trump-appointed judge or supreme court showdown to revisit the Sullivan ruling – following the same decades-long Republican strategy that finally overturned Roe v Wade. And in the meantime, DeSantis can burnish his anti-media bona fides for his presidential run, and Republican legislatures around the country can use the opportunity to copy the bill or one-up him.Whether the bill survives in the long term doesn’t change the fact that it would destroy all media in Florida – the traditional and mainstream, but also the independent and alternative, including all the conservative publications that have sprouted up all over the state in recent years.DeSantis has turned Florida into a national laboratory for speech suppression. And every American – Republican or Democrat – should be horrified.TopicsUS politicsOpinionRon DeSantisFreedom of speechJournalism booksFloridaUS supreme courtcommentReuse this content More

    • 100 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden bounces back: Inside 19 August Guardian Weekly

      by

      Biden bounces back: Inside 19 August Guardian Weekly Joe Biden rides high. Plus, 75 years since the Partition of India
      Get the Guardian Weekly delivered to your home address Joe Biden’s political capital is riding high after a key plank of his legislative programme came to fruition. But the US president has greeted this “hot streak” in his usual quiet fashion. For his predecessor, it was a decidedly rough week after his home was raided by the FBI, looking for official documents that Donald Trump had held on to after his presidential term had ended. The reaction was a typical explosion of rage and accusation. David Smith, our Washington bureau chief, follows this compare-and-contrast theme to see which of the two men, who at this juncture still look likely to face each other again in the 2024 presidential election, came out on top.We report on two anniversaries in one region this week as Monday marked 75 years since the Partition of India, as well as a year since Afghanistan returned to Taliban rule. Our world affairs editor, Julian Borger, examines the extent to which Pakistan and India are still scarred by a final, brutal colonial flourish that divided communities, while Stefanie Glinski’s photo essay from Kabul focuses on how women’s rights have been eroded in the past year.The shocking news of the stabbing of Salman Rushdie reminded the world of the importance of free speech and how the efforts of ideological fanatics to curb it must be resisted. As Margaret Atwood writes on our Opinion pages, attacks on writers are a cheap populist distraction, while on the news pages we look at how Rushdie’s novel The Satanic Verses triggered hatred against him.Leading our features section this week is a story about a reversal in reputation. Peru-based writer Dan Collyns explains how Bolivian tin baron Moritz Hochschild, had been viewed as an exploitative oligarch until the discovery of a cache of papers revealed his role in saving thousands of Jews from Nazi Germany and how he used his power to overcome antisemitism in the ruling elites. And then we take a full and frank look at the growing popularity of naturism in Britain. The photographs are necessarily coy, with artfully placed props, but writer Sally Howard takes the pastime as seriously as its practitioners. We hope you enjoy this week’s issue.Get the magazine delivered to you at homeTopicsUS politicsInside Guardian WeeklyDonald TrumpJoe BidenSalman RushdieFreedom of speechIndiaAfghanistanReuse this content More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in World Politics

      Thought Crimes: the Shameful Undemocratic Wilding of Contrary Opinion

      by

      The Fair Observer website uses digital cookies so it can collect statistics on how many visitors come to the site, what content is viewed and for how long, and the general location of the computer network of the visitor. These statistics are collected and processed using the Google Analytics service. Fair Observer uses these aggregate statistics from website visits to help improve the content of the website and to provide regular reports to our current and future donors and funding organizations. The type of digital cookie information collected during your visit and any derived data cannot be used or combined with other information to personally identify you. Fair Observer does not use personal data collected from its website for advertising purposes or to market to you.As a convenience to you, Fair Observer provides buttons that link to popular social media sites, called social sharing buttons, to help you share Fair Observer content and your comments and opinions about it on these social media sites. These social sharing buttons are provided by and are part of these social media sites. They may collect and use personal data as described in their respective policies. Fair Observer does not receive personal data from your use of these social sharing buttons. It is not necessary that you use these buttons to read Fair Observer content or to share on social media. More