THE NEW YORK TIMES: President Trump is clamping down broadly on dissent using the tools of the federal government.
For months now, President Trump has been threatening to deport foreign students who took part in last year’s campus protests over the Israel-Hamas war.
Behind the scenes, his administration got to work.
Investigators from a branch of Immigration and Customs Enforcement that typically focuses on human traffickers and drug smugglers scoured the internet for social media posts and videos that the administration could argue showed sympathy toward Hamas, administration officials said. The investigators handed over reports on multiple protesters to the State Department, which used an obscure legal statute to authorize the arrest over the weekend of a 30-year-old lawful permanent resident: Mahmoud Khalil.
Mr. Trump said this week that Mr. Khalil’s case was the first of “many to come.”
Civil rights groups say the arrest of Mr. Khalil, who is a legal permanent resident and is married to an American citizen, is a clear violation of the First Amendment. But it also illustrates how Mr. Trump is using the tools of the federal government to launch a crackdown not only on those who break the law — but also on dissent more broadly. » | Zolan Kanno-Youngs and Hamed Aleaziz | Reporting from Washington | Wednesday, March 12, 2025
Showing posts with label freedom of expression. Show all posts
Showing posts with label freedom of expression. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 12, 2025
Thursday, September 07, 2023
The Escalating Frequency of Quran Burnings in Sweden and Denmark Sparks Outrage in the Muslim World
That Denmark is re-introducing a form of blasphemy law to deal with these Quran burnings is as insane as it is outrageous. This will put Denmark, once a bastion of enlightened liberal values, on a fast track to the ‘New Dark Age’ I wrote of so many years ago!
It is not difficult to understand WHY the Danish government may conclude that this is the right political decision; but it is NOT. The re-introduction of ANY form of blasphemy law is WRONG. And it is wrong in so many ways and for so many reasons.
The blasphemy law in Denmark has only relatively recently been repealed. I am pretty sure that it was never, if ever, used by the Danish Christian community. But here, we are dealing with a very different community! The Muslim community will take every opportunity to use this law against any perceived transgressor. Be sure of one thing, Denmark: The Danish courts will used by Muslims to help firmly establish Islam’s hoped-for supremacy in the country.
By re-introducing a rejigged blasphemy law into the nation’s statute books, Denmark is embarking on a new journey on a very slippery and dangerous road.
This is the beginning of the end of true freedom for the Danes. – © Mark Alexander
Sunday, January 02, 2022
It’s Not the Police’s Job to Shut Down Political Debate. They Should Stick to Solving Crime
THE OBSERVER – OPINION: The appeals court has rightly upheld Harry Miller’s freedom to express his views
Aman gets a call from a police officer. He is told that, while he has done nothing criminal, his social media posts have offended someone, so the police have recorded them as a non-crime hate incident that may show up on criminal record checks. The officer warns that if he continues to “escalate” matters, the police may take criminal action against him, a message later reinforced by his superiors.
It may sound like something out of a police state. But this happened in Britain in 2019, in a case that led the high court judge who later ruled the actions of Humberside police force unlawful to warn them, “in this country we have never had a Cheka, a Gestapo or a Stasi”. Despite there being no evidence that Harry Miller, the man in question, might ever stray into unlawful speech, the police took action that reasonably led him to believe that he was being warned not to exercise his right to freedom of expression on pain of potential criminal prosecution; they also opined to the press that Miller’s tweets were “transphobic”.
And just before Christmas, in a landmark judgment that has attracted surprisingly little commentary from human rights lawyers given its profound implications, the court of appeal went further in ruling that the College of Policing’s guidance that the police should record all non-crime hate incidents, as perceived by those taking offence at them, is an unlawful incursion on citizens’ freedom of expression. » | Sonia Sodha | Sunday, January 2, 2022
Aman gets a call from a police officer. He is told that, while he has done nothing criminal, his social media posts have offended someone, so the police have recorded them as a non-crime hate incident that may show up on criminal record checks. The officer warns that if he continues to “escalate” matters, the police may take criminal action against him, a message later reinforced by his superiors.
It may sound like something out of a police state. But this happened in Britain in 2019, in a case that led the high court judge who later ruled the actions of Humberside police force unlawful to warn them, “in this country we have never had a Cheka, a Gestapo or a Stasi”. Despite there being no evidence that Harry Miller, the man in question, might ever stray into unlawful speech, the police took action that reasonably led him to believe that he was being warned not to exercise his right to freedom of expression on pain of potential criminal prosecution; they also opined to the press that Miller’s tweets were “transphobic”.
And just before Christmas, in a landmark judgment that has attracted surprisingly little commentary from human rights lawyers given its profound implications, the court of appeal went further in ruling that the College of Policing’s guidance that the police should record all non-crime hate incidents, as perceived by those taking offence at them, is an unlawful incursion on citizens’ freedom of expression. » | Sonia Sodha | Sunday, January 2, 2022
Wednesday, June 28, 2017
UN: Demand to Shut Al Jazeera a Threat to Media Freedom
Saturday, June 24, 2017
Saudi's Outrageous Demand! 'We Call on All Governments to Respect Media Freedoms': Al-Jazeera on Saudi Demands for Its Closure
Read the Guardian article here
Tuesday, June 09, 2015
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
Friday, January 09, 2015
'Hacktivist' Group Anonymous Says It Will Avenge Charlie Hebdo Attacks by Shutting Down Jihadist Websites
Hacker group Anonymous have released a video and a statement via Twitter condemning the attacks on Charlie Hebdo, in which 12 people, including eight journalists, were murdered.
The video description says that it is "a message for al-Qaeda, the Islamic State and other terrorists", and was uploaded to the group's Belgian account.
In the clip, a figure wearing the group's symbolic Guy Fawkes mask is seated in front of a desk with the hashtag #OpCharlieHebdo - which stands for Operation Charlie Hebdo - featured on screen.
The figure, whose voice is obscured says: "We are declaring war against you, the terrorists." » | Keely Lockhart, Video source YouTube / anonymous belgique | Friday, January 09, 2015
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
REUTERS.COM: (Reuters) - Western opposition has made it impossible for Muslim states to obtain a ban on blasphemy, including anti-Islamic videos and cartoons that have touched off deadly riots, the Islamic world's top diplomat said.
Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, secretary general of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), said his 57-nation body would not try again for United Nations support to ban insults to religion, but appealed for states to apply hate-speech laws concerning Islam.
"We could not convince them," said the Turkish head of the 57-member organisation which had tried from 1998 until 2011 to get a United Nations-backed ban on blasphemy.
"The European countries don't vote with us, the United States doesn't vote with us."
Western countries see the publication of such images and materials as a matter of free speech. » | Tom Heneghan, Religion Editor | ISTANBUL | Monday, October 15, 2012
Monday, October 15, 2012
Related »
A protest by 10,000 Muslims outside the offices of Google in London today is just the first in an orchestrated attempt to force the company to remove an anti-Islamic film from website YouTube in Britain.
Thousands had travelled from as far afield as Glasgow to take part in the demonstration, ahead of a planned million-strong march in Hyde Park in coming weeks.
Anger over 'The Innocence of Muslims', an American-produced film which insults the Prophet Mohammad and demeans Muslims, according to protesters, remains available to watch on the website YouTube, a subsidiary of Google.
Organiser Masoud Alam said: "Our next protest will be at the offices of Google and YouTube across the world. We are looking to ban this film.
"This is not freedom of expression, there is a limit for that. This insult of the Prophet will not be allowed.
The group's next action was a march Mr Alam hoped would be "a million strong" would take place in Hyde Park "in the next few weeks", he said.
"Until it is banned we will keep protesting," he added. » | Jennifer O'Mahony | Sunday, October 14, 2012
Friday, October 12, 2012
THE DAILY TELEGRAPH: Saudi Arabia has called for a new international body to censor the internet, in the wake of the anti-Islam YouTube clip that recently sparked violence in the Middle East.
In a submission to forthcoming international talks on internet governance, the Gulf state said “there is a crying need for international collaboration to address ‘freedom of expression’ which clearly disregards public order”.
During the controversy over a 14-minute clip posted on YouTube and purportedly a trailer for a feature film called “The Innocence of Muslims”, Google resisted pressure, including from the White House, to remove it.
"This video - which is widely available on the web - is clearly within our guidelines and so will stay on YouTube," Google said last month.
The Saudi government has now told the World Telecommunications Policy Forum, a UN body, that the incident was “an obvious example” of the need for greater international cooperation to restrict content online.
“Any reasonable person would know that this film would foment violence and, indeed, many innocent persons have died and been injured with this film as a root cause,” the Saudi submission said. …
“This behaviour, along with other malicious and criminal activities such as child pornography, identity theft, spam, denial of service attacks, and malware aimed at destroying or crippling businesses, inter alia, must be addressed by states in a collaborative and cooperative environment and strongly underscores the need for enhanced cooperation,” it said. » | Christopher Williams, Technology Correspondent | Thursday, October 11, 2012
My comment:
One of these fine days, the West is going to have to go to war to defend the hard-won principles which are the cornerstone of Western civilisation. We simply cannot allow a totalitarian, theocratic ideology to destroy the principles for which so many have died.
“…Humanity must fight against bad things if we are to survive, and the spiritual things are stronger than anything else, and cannot be destroyed, thank God.” – HRH The Queen MotherThis nonsense has come about because Western politicians have appeased these people all the way along the line, because they haven't stood up, firmly and resolutely, for the principles upon which the West has been founded. As a result, we now have a situation in which Third Worlders are trying to pull the strings. – © Mark
Monday, October 01, 2012
THE REGISTER-GUARD: Is the right to freely speak one’s mind absolute, or are there words that demand to be removed from polite society? And if some words are beyond the pale, who decides what is OK and what is banned? Would you support restrictions on your right to speak freely?
These questions are quickly becoming relevant to the future of free speech here in Eugene and across America — and it all stems from a bad Internet movie about the prophet Muhammad.
I asked my fellow students at Lane Community College how they felt about the movie and their position on free speech, and virtually without exception they had no opinion. There was no group-think, but there was also no awareness of the potential problem, either.
I was heartened when, after explaining the situation, some fellow students agreed that free speech should not be abridged. This belief does not apply in many countries today, nor is it part of the “tolerance” espoused here in Eugene.
I know what it is like to be attacked and shouted down when trying to speak. I was censored by LCC because of pressure from the Council on American–Islamic Relations regarding a noncredit class I was to teach on Islam. I was censored as a lecturer during the days of Pacifica Forum, when I dared to speak controversially about the Holocaust and Islam. I had a table at the federal building on Saturday mornings during the summer but was shouted down as well as having a complaint registered against me to the Eugene Human Rights Commission.
I cannot speak about Islam, yet local Judaeophobes can demean Israel and call for its deconstruction with no complaints. Why? My First Amendment rights were curtailed because someone did not like my words. Degrading speech about Israel and Jews is OK because Jews will not kill to avenge a slight. Degrading speech about Islam or Muslims is not allowed, because they kill out of anger and revenge. Anyone see the double standard here? Read on and comment » | Barry Sommer | Guest Viewpoint | Monday, October 01, 2012
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Obama made a strong condemnation of “violence and intolerance” in his speech at the UN headquarters on Tuesday. He said world leaders had a duty to speak out against the deadly attacks on Americans in the past two weeks caused by an anti-Islam film made in the United States.
But Muslim kings and presidents and other heads of state said Western nations must clamp down on “Islamophobia” following the storm over the film which mocks the Prophet Mohammed.
President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono of Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim nation, said the film was another “ugly face” of religious defamation.
Yudhoyono quoted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as saying that “everyone must observe morality and public order” and commented: “Freedom of expression is therefore not absolute.”
He called for “an international instrument to effectively prevent incitement to hostility or violence based on religions or beliefs.” King Abdullah II of Jordan, a close US ally, spoke out against the film and the violence it sparked.
Pakistan’s President Asif Ali Zardari condemned what he called the “incitement of hate” against Muslims and demanded United Nations action. » | Sapa-AFP | Wednesday, September 26, 2012
Thursday, September 20, 2012
THE GUARDIAN: UN declaration supports free speech but this has been subject to many legal qualifications
Hate-speech crimes, and offences under blasphemy, sexual equality, defamation or racial abuse laws vary around the world. But absolute freedom of expression is curtailed in many countries.
Article 19 of the UN's universal declaration of human rights in 1948 envisaged few restrictions. "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression," it stated. "This right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
In practice there are lots of legal qualifications. A 1994 judgment of the European court of human rights in Strasbourg involving a Danish journalist tried to define the overarching principle "that tolerance and respect for the equal dignity of all human beings constitute the foundations of a democratic, pluralistic society".
So, "it may be considered necessary in certain democratic societies to sanction or even prevent all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify hatred based on intolerance (including religious intolerance), provided that any formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties imposed are proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued". » | Owen Bowcott, legal affairs correspondent | Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Saturday, March 17, 2012
THE DAILY TELEGRAPH: Sir Salman Rushdie last night accused India's government and some of its political leaders of cowardice over their failure to defend his and other artists' freedom of expression in the face of protests by Muslim and Hindu extremists.
He also launched a withering attack on Imran Khan, the former Pakistan cricket captain-turned-politician who withdrew from a conference in New Delhi in 'protest' at Sir Salman's appearance at the same event.
He said Mr Khan had lived a 'playboy' life as a young man, but had now "struck deals with the army and the Mullahs" in his quest for power in Pakistan. He was a "dictator in waiting", he said.
The celebrated Booker-winning author was speaking at a conclave of opinion formers organised by the leading Indian magazine group India Today, two months after he was forced to withdraw from the Jaipur Literature Festival following threats and protests from Islamic extremists over his 1988 novel The Satanic Verses. He backed out after police and government officials warned him an assassination team had been dispatched to kill him. » | Dean Nelson in New Delhi | Saturday, March 17, 2012
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Monday, February 28, 2011
REUTERS: Omani protesters demanding political reforms blocked roads to a main export port and refinery on Monday and a doctor said the death toll from clashes with police in the Gulf Arab sultanate had risen to six.
Hundreds of protesters blocked the entrance to the industrial area of the northern coastal town of Sohar, which includes a port, refinery and aluminum factory. They pushed back four army vehicles that had been observing the scene.
"We want to see the benefit of our oil wealth distributed evenly to the population," one protester yelled over a loudhailer near the port. "We want to see a scale-down of expatriates in Oman so more jobs can be created for Omanis."
The unrest in Sohar, Oman's main industrial center, was a rare outbreak of discontent in the normally sleepy sultanate ruled by Sultan Qaboos bin Said for four decades, and follows a wave of pro-democracy protests across the Arab world.
Oman's government, trying to calm tensions, promised on Sunday to create more jobs and give benefits to job seekers.
A main supermarket in Sohar was burning on Monday after being looted, witnesses said. Protesters stormed the town's police station on Sunday to try to free detainees before burning it. They had also set two state offices alight.
As well as those demonstrating outside the industrial area, hundreds more were at the main Globe Roundabout, angry after police opened fire on Sunday at stone-throwing protesters demanding political reforms, jobs and better pay.
Graffiti scrawled on a statue said: "The people are hungry." Another message read: "No to oppression of the people."
Nearby, sidewalks were smashed and office windows broken. Troops deployed around the town but were not intervening to disperse protesters.
"There are no jobs, there's no freedom of opinion. The people are tired and people want money. People want to end corruption," said Ali al-Mazroui, 30, who is unemployed. >>> Jason Benham and Saleh Al-Shaibany | Monday, February 28, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)