Throughout the west, criticizing the Netanyahu government is now a crime punishable by imprisonment. Glenn Greenwald on the end of free speech.
Archiv: Freiheit von Meinung und Äußerung / Verbote / freedom of speech / expression / language / bans
BREAKING: Tucker Carlson Might be Arrested! Find Out Why!
(video)
When you discover the CIA has been reading your texts in order to frame you for a crime.
(video)
‘Treason’: GOP Lawmaker Trashes Tucker Carlson — Calls for Him to Be Imprisoned If He ‘Worked With Iran’
Miller shared his blunt assessment of Carlson and the situation he’s in on Sunday, one day after Carlson claimed the Justice Department would soon charge him for being an unregistered foreign agent; Carlson said he was being targeted for “talking to people in Iran before the war,” which he said the CIA found out by spying on his text messages.
The congressmen said that if Carlson is telling the truth — and if he really committed “treason” — he has to pay the price.
CIA Prepares Criminal Referral of Tucker Carlson, as Israel and its Loyalists Demand His Arrest
On Friday morning, I taped an appearance on Tucker Carlson’s program to discuss the ongoing Iran War, growing Israeli influence in the U.S., and proliferating attacks on free speech in the West in the name of shielding that one foreign country from critique (I presume it will air in the next few days). Perhaps the most notable part of our conversation was what Tucker told me prior to the cameras rolling.
Tucker said he had learned from several high-placed sources — and he obviously has many within the Trump administration — that the CIA was preparing a criminal referral about him to the DOJ. The subject of the agency’s report of suspected crimes: conversations he allegedly had with Iranian officials and others in Iran prior to the start of the Trump/Netanyahu war. The clear implication was that Tucker had committed acts of subversion or even treason by speaking to Iranians in advance of the war that was about to be launched on their country.
Constitution of the United States: First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
FCC chair threatens networks’ licenses after Trump complains about Iran coverage
“Broadcasters that are running hoaxes and news distortions — also known as the fake news — have a chance now to correct course before their license renewals come up,” Carr wrote in a post on the social platform X.
“The law is clear. Broadcasters must operate in the public interest, and they will lose their licenses if they do not,” he warned.
FCC Chair Threatens to Revoke Broadcast Licenses Over Iran War Coverage
Amid surging oil prices and an unpopular war of choice in Iran, Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr is threatening not to renew the licenses of broadcasters for “running hoaxes and news distortions.” The Saturday post from Carr on X is not subtle: It explicitly warns broadcasters that they “have a chance now to correct course before their license renewals come up.”
Carr’s missive came in response to a Truth Social post on Saturday from President Donald Trump, which the FCC chair included in full as a screenshot.
Susanne Marie Schäfer als „unbelehrbare Staatsfeindin“ zum Tode verurteilt – Gedanken zur Meinungsfreiheit
Susanne Marie Schäfer hat die „Kriegsmoral untergraben“ und wird als „unbelehrbare Staatsfeindin“ zum Tode verurteilt – im „Namen des deutschen Volkes“. Das war im Januar 1945. Das Vergehen von der in Schwetzingen Geborenen: Sie hatte sich regimekritisch geäußert. Die Nazis sahen in ihr eine Hetzerin. Zuerst erfolgte eine Verurteilung wegen „Heimtücke“. Schäfer hielt sich aber nicht zurück. Nach ihrer Haftentlassung stellte sie in ihrem Mietshaus gegenüber ihren Mietern Kriegserfolge der Wehrmacht infrage. Das war ihr Todesurteil. Stichwort: „Wehrkraftzersetzung“. Ihre Hinrichtung erfolgte am 23. Februar 1945. Die Geschichte lehrt uns: Auf die Meinungsfreiheit kommt es vor allem dann an, wenn sie sich gegen die vorherrschende Politik richtet.
Post-7 October: A New Wave of Anti-Palestinian Israeli Laws
This report builds on Adalah’s position paper of 23 October 2024, which reviewed key bills at advanced stages of the legislative process, many of which were later enacted into law. The information contained in this report and the position paper also join Adalah’s online Discriminatory Laws Database in documenting about 100 Israeli laws that directly or indirectly discriminate against Palestinian citizens of Israel and Palestinians under Israeli occupation.
The laws examined in this report span multiple themes and violate numerous fundamental rights, including freedom of expression (FoE), protest, and thought; the right to citizenship and legal status; the rights to family life, equality, social benefits, and equality in the allocation of state resources; principles of criminal justice; and prisoners’ rights. While these violations are legitimized by the hostile public and political climate fueled by the war, their roots lie deep in Israel’s constitutional and political culture, which is based on the principle of Jewish ethno-national supremacy. These laws reinforce and entrench the ongoing pattern in Israeli law of creating and consolidating separate legal systems for Palestinians and Jews.
Notably, the trends identified in this report do not represent a fundamental shift in the state’s approach toward Palestinians. Even before the war, Adalah noted in its January 2023 position paper, which analyzed the current government’s guiding principles and coalition agreements, that the principles underpinning Israel’s system are based on Jewish ethno-national supremacy throughout all territory under its control. The government explicitly declared in its guiding principles, “The Jewish people have an exclusive and inalienable right over all areas of the Land of Israel.” These statements were not unprecedented but rather a direct continuation of the logic underlying the Jewish Nation-State Law, passed by the Knesset on 19 July 2018, and of the constitutional framework established since the state’s founding, reflected in its explicit ethno-national identity as a “Jewish and democratic” state. However, the crimes committed by Hamas and other armed groups in southern Israel on 7 October 2023 have been—and continue to be—used by Israeli authorities to justify intensifying these trends and further consolidating a regime of ethno-national supremacy on an even larger scale.
Legislating apartheid: How Israel entrenched unequal rule during Gaza war
For over two years, Israeli public life has been shrouded in a heavy, disorienting fog. There has been an unending churn of crises, conflicts, and anxieties at home and abroad: the shock of the Hamas attack of October 7 and Israel’s genocidal campaign of revenge on Gaza, the fight to bring back the hostages and against the state’s vilification of their families, the reckless confrontations with Iran. Together, these have left Israeli society suspended in a collective stupor, obscuring the depth of the abyss into which we are rapidly descending.
But the same cannot be said of our parliamentarians. As a disturbing new report by the Haifa-based legal center Adalah shows, they have used the chaos of the past two years to advance more than 30 new laws entrenching apartheid and Jewish supremacy — joining Adalah’s existing list of now more than 100 Israeli laws that discriminate against Palestinian citizens.
One of the report’s central findings is a sweeping assault on freedom of expression, thought, and protest across a wide array of arenas. It includes laws prohibiting the publication of content that includes “denial of the events of October 7,” as determined by the Knesset, and restricting broadcasts of critical media outlets that “harm state security.”
DE Sign in Erika Kirk on Why She Forgave Her Husband‘s Killer | 2025 Dealbook Summit
Erika Kirk’s passionate advocacy for conservative values, alongside her husband Charlie, has long placed her in the public eye. In the wake of tragedy, how does she think about responsibility, resilience — and the work still to come? Watch this conversation about leading through uncertainty and how to turn hardship into purpose.
Guest: Erika Kirk, C.E.O. and Chair of the Board of Turning Point USA
Interviewer: Andrew Ross Sorkin, Founder and Editor at Large of DealBook
Erika Kirk Speaks to the Liberal Elite—and Almost Sticks the Landing
Though Kirk has become a national figure since the death of her husband, her selection as the closing speaker at the annual summit for the Times’ business vertical was unexpected. But Sorkin explained the reason for the decision after the two got onstage. About a year ago, he said, he met and befriended Charlie. The two texted and emailed frequently about their political disagreements.
“Charlie Kirk was supposed to be here today. He was supposed to be part of a task force that we had been talking about for quite some time,” Sorkin said. He decided to instead extend the invitation to Erika Kirk after she spoke ahead of President Donald Trump at her husband’s televised memorial service. “I sat and watched the funeral by video, and I watched you, and I sat in awe…when you forgave the assassin…. It was at that moment I said to myself, I need to talk to Erika,” Sorkin explained.
‘A wave of truth’: COP30 targets disinformation threat to climate action
Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva set the tone at the opening session, declaring that the battle for truth has become just as critical as the fight to cut emissions. COP30 must mark “a new defeat for climate denialists,” he said.
On Wednesday, 12 nations – including Brazil, Canada, France, Germany and Spain – signed onto the first-ever Declaration on Information Integrity on Climate Change, pledging to fight back against the flood of false content and protect those on the frontlines of truth: environmental journalists, scientists and researchers.
The declaration, unveiled under the Global Initiative for Information Integrity on Climate Change, calls for concrete steps to dismantle networks of climate lies and shield evidence-based voices from harassment and attacks.
Jimmy Kimmel is Back!
Jimmy Kimmel returns to the air and talks about all of the people who have reached out over the last six days including fellow late night talk show hosts, fans of the show, and those who don’t support what he believes but support his right to share those beliefs anyway, and he expresses that it was never his intention to make light of the murder of a young man, how important it is to live in a country that allows us to have a show like this, the Chairman of the FCC Brendan Carr telling an American company that “We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” Trump saying he has no talent and no ratings, being fortunate to work at a company that has allowed us to do the show we want to do for almost 23 years, not agreeing with the decision to have our show pulled off the air last Wednesday, Trump making it very clear he wants to see Jimmy and other late night hosts fired, and solidarity from the right, left and those in the middle.
‘Dangerous as hell’: Cruz blasts FCC’s Jimmy Kimmel takedown
The comments are notable coming from Cruz — both as a loyalist of President Donald Trump and as chair of the Senate Commerce Committee, which has oversight authority over the FCC.
He also joins other prominent GOP lawmakers warning about how the FCC wields its power, as Democrats continue to decry the pressure to suspend Kimmel’s show as a free speech violation.
Earlier this week, Cruz said at a POLITICO AI & Tech summit that the First Amendment “absolutely protects hate speech,” although he added that it doesn’t make people “immune from consequences” from their employers.
Der Mord an Charlie Kirk ist eine Katastrophe
Charlie Kirks Ermordung droht die US-Rechte weiter aufzuwiegeln und die Hoffnung auf sozialen Fortschritt zu erlöschen. Denn dass politische Kämpfe mit Worten und nicht Patronen ausgetragen werden, ist eine Überlebensfrage für die Demokratie und die Linke.
Charlie Kirk’s Murder Is a Tragedy and a Disaster
The assassination of Charlie Kirk threatens to embolden the far right and provide Donald Trump with a pretext for crushing dissent. Escalating political violence corrodes democratic norms and poses a unique threat to the Left.
Senators Bernie Sanders, Peter Welch and Chris Van Hollen in Solidarity with Odeh
(16 hours ago)
“We strongly condemn the effort to expel MK Ayman Odeh from the Israeli Knesset,” the US senators said. “If Israel is going to call itself a democracy, it must tolerate peaceful dissent.” The senators linked the expulsion effort to Odeh’s calls for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, an end to Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories, and a political solution between Israelis and Palestinians.
“For over a decade, MK Odeh has been a leading advocate for peace, justice, and Jewish-Arab partnership,” they said. “The current expulsion effort is a direct response to MK Odeh’s outspoken and brave calls.” The lawmakers described the move as sending “a chilling message to millions of Palestinian citizens of Israel: that their representation is conditional and their rights revocable.” “We stand in solidarity with MK Odeh and with the right of all lawmakers, Arab and Jewish, to speak freely and without fear of political retribution,” they said.
The Commissioner asks the German authorities to uphold freedom of expression and peaceful assembly in the context of the conflict in Gaza
(June 19, 2025)
In a letter addressed to the Federal Minister of the Interior of Germany published today, Commissioner O’Flaherty raises concerns about restrictions to freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly of persons protesting in the context of the conflict in Gaza, as well as about reports of excessive use of force by police against protesters, including children.
Commissioner O’Flaherty also observes restrictions on events, symbols, or other forms of expression in this context. He recalls that member states have little scope to impose restrictions on political speech or on debate on matters of public interest, in line with the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and the Council of Europe standards on freedom of expression, hate speech and hate crime. He urges the German authorities to be vigilant that the working definition of antisemitism of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance is not distorted, instrumentalised or misapplied to stifle freedom of expression and legitimate criticism, including of the state of Israel.
Recalling that member states have legal obligations to refrain from undue interference with human rights and to ensure the effective enjoyment of the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly for all, the Commissioner asks the German authorities to avoid taking measures that discriminate against persons based on their political or other opinions, religion or belief, ethnic origin, nationality or migration status.
The Knesset vs Ayman Odeh
On Monday, the Knesset House Committee voted to impeach Palestinian parliamentarian Ayman Odeh, head of the predominantly Arab Hadash-Ta’al list. His crime? In January, as the two-month Gaza ceasefire came into effect, Odeh tweeted: “I am happy about the release of the [Israeli] hostages and [Palestinian] prisoners. From here, both peoples must be freed from the yoke of the occupation. We were all born free.”
As I watched the committee’s hearing, I felt like my eyes were bleeding. It was physically unbearable. Knesset members from across the political spectrum — who aren’t worthy of the dust on Odeh’s shoes when it comes to humanism, morality, and democratic integrity — competed to see who could spew the vilest rhetoric against him.
No one paid attention to the Knesset’s legal adviser — who, after the obligatory lip service condemning Odeh’s “disgusting statements,” concluded that there was no legal basis for his impeachment. And it goes without saying that no one listened to Odeh’s attorney, Dr. Hassan Jabareen, who explained why the proposal was procedurally flawed, legally unsound, and morally bankrupt.
From the first sentence to the last, the hearing was a farce.
MK Ayman Odeh decries Knesset House Committee as ‚fascist‘ after impeachment vote
The impeachment was not just a response to specific statements but directed against “Odeh as a person and everything he represents,” Boaron said in his closing argument. At the end of the hearing, committee chairman Ofir Katz (Likud) said Odeh was a “bitter enemy” of Israel, and in a “normal country,” he would “rot in jail.”
Only Ra’am MK Waleed Taha and Hadash-Ta’al MK Ahmad Tibi voted against his impeachment.
Mr. Alexander DOBRINDT Federal Minister of the Interior: Dear Minister ….
(June 6, 2025)
It is my understanding that since February 2025, the Berlin authorities have imposed restrictions on the use of the Arabic language and cultural symbols in the context of the protests. In some cases, such as an assembly in Berlin on 15 May 2025, marches have been restricted to stationary gatherings. Furthermore, protestors were allegedly subject to intrusive surveillance, online or in person, and arbitrary police checks. I am also concerned by reports of excessive use of force by police against protesters, including minors, sometimes leading to injuries.
(…)
I understand that restrictions have been justified on the basis that events, symbols, or other forms of expression “disrupt public order” or “disturb public peace”. The case-law of the European Court of Human Rights’ (the Court) establishes that freedom of expression “applies not only to ‘information’ and ‘ideas’ that are favourably received, regarded as inoffensive, or which leave one indifferent […] – it implies pluralism, tolerance and openness, without which there is no ‘democratic society’”. In assessing the necessity of the interference, member states have little scope to impose restrictions on political speech or on debate on matters of public interest, unless the views expressed comprise incitements to violence, and must always carry out such an assessment case by case.
I observe that other justifications invoked for the restrictions on rights include the prevention of antisemitism. I note with concern reports indicating that the working definition of antisemitism of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) has been interpreted by some German authorities in ways which lead to the blanket classification of criticism of Israel as antisemitic. In that regard, I urge you to be vigilant that the IHRA working definition is not distorted, instrumentalised or misapplied to stifle freedom of expression and legitimate criticism, including of the state of Israel
The Commissioner asks the German authorities to uphold freedom of expression and peaceful assembly in the context of the conflict in Gaza
(June 19, 2025)
In a letter addressed to the Federal Minister of the Interior of Germany published today, Commissioner O’Flaherty raises concerns about restrictions to freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly of persons protesting in the context of the conflict in Gaza, as well as about reports of excessive use of force by police against protesters, including children.
Commissioner O’Flaherty also observes restrictions on events, symbols, or other forms of expression in this context. He recalls that member states have little scope to impose restrictions on political speech or on debate on matters of public interest, in line with the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and the Council of Europe standards on freedom of expression, hate speech and hate crime. He urges the German authorities to be vigilant that the working definition of antisemitism of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance is not distorted, instrumentalised or misapplied to stifle freedom of expression and legitimate criticism, including of the state of Israel.
Recalling that member states have legal obligations to refrain from undue interference with human rights and to ensure the effective enjoyment of the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly for all, the Commissioner asks the German authorities to avoid taking measures that discriminate against persons based on their political or other opinions, religion or belief, ethnic origin, nationality or migration status.
Menschenrechtskommissar des Europarates kritisiert Bundesregierung wegen Einschränkung der Meinungs- und Versammlungsfreiheit
Der Menschenrechtskommissar des Europarates, Michael O’Flaherty, hat in einem am 19. Juni veröffentlichten Brief an Bundesinnenminister Alexander Dobrindt seine Besorgnis über Einschränkungen der Meinungs- und Versammlungsfreiheit in Deutschland zum Ausdruck gebracht. Explizit verweist er in dem Schreiben auf die behördliche Repression von Protesten gegen Israels Vorgehen in Gaza sowie eine Instrumentalisierung des Antisemitismusvorwurfs, „um legitime Kritik, auch am Staat Israel, zu unterdrücken.“
Israeli Knesset committee approves motion to impeach Arab lawmaker Ayman Odeh
The motion will now move to the Knesset’s plenary session for a majority vote of 90 members out of 120 to complete Odeh’s impeachment.
Even if his impeachment is approved, the Arab MK will still be able to file a petition against the decision with the Supreme Court.
Palestinians of 1948 (Arabs inside Israel) constitute 21% of Israel’s nearly 10 million population.
Panel votes to impeach Arab MK Ayman Odeh, paving way for possible ouster from Knesset
While a similar effort to oust Hadash-Ta’al MK Ofer Cassif failed in the Knesset plenum in February 2024 due to insufficient support from the opposition, opposition representatives on the committee were very much in favor of the motion this time around, with both Yesh Atid MK Simon Davidson and National Unity lawmaker Pnina Tamano-Shata voting in favor of impeachment.
Attempted removal of Ayman Odeh from the Israeli Knesset
EDM (Early Day Motion) 695: tabled on 24 January 2025
Tabled in the 2024-25 session.
This motion has been signed by 10 Members. It has not yet had any amendments submitted.
Motion text
That this House expresses deep concern regarding the efforts of Israeli coalition and opposition politicians to oust MK Ayman Odeh from the Knesset; joins Odeh in welcoming the Israel-Hamas ceasefire deal which enabled the exchange of Israeli and Palestinian hostages and abductees; supports the sentiment of Palestinians and Israelis being freed from the burden of occupation and building a shared future; notes that, of the 90 Palestinians hostages most recently released by Israel, 69 were women, 21 were children, and most had been held without charge or trial; acknowledges the existence of myriad political mechanisms that enable the targeting, exclusion, and marginalisation of Palestinian-Israeli members of the Knesset, including the conflation of one’s support for Palestinian rights with support for terrorism or incitement to violence; further notes the similar employment of the impeachment process against MK Ofer Cassif, as a result of his signing a petition in support of the South Africa’s case forwarded in the International Court of Justice, accusing Israel of committing genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza; believes in the value of maintaining a representative democracy that encompasses a broad array of political, social, and ethnic creeds; and calls on the Government to vehemently oppose any efforts by Israeli parliamentarians to further solidify an ethnocratic, apartheid state, and deny the Palestinian population’s right to self-determination through the rooting out of democratically elected officials that represent their cause.
Knesset Hearing Offers the Clearest Evidence: Expulsion Attempt Against MK Ayman Odeh Is a Political and Inciteful Campaign Against Palestinian Representation
(June 27, 2025)
In a display of open hostility, Committee Chair Ofir Katz declared to MK Odeh: “You won’t be in the Knesset—we will remain, and you won’t. Not in the Knesset, not in Israel.” Other MKs shouted that he should “keep shouting from jail,” while another told him: “You all should go to Gaza”. Right-wing MKs accused him of promoting a “violent Palestinian ideology,” said an indictment should already have been filed, and called him an “enemy from within.”
Chair Katz escalated the incitement further, stating: “While the soldiers are fighting on seven fronts, the eighth front needs to be cleared, and Ayman Odeh is our eighth front… He is continuously working to weaken the State of Israel, to discredit it, to undermine it and to strengthen its enemies.” When MK Odeh repeated that the Israeli military is committing war crimes—a statement for which he was already sanctioned by the Knesset Ethics Committee—the chair threatened: “If you continue to defame IDF soldiers, you will not be allowed to speak here.”
The committee blatantly ignored the Knesset legal advisor’s determination that only one statement—MK Odeh’s January tweet concerning the Israel-Hamas deal—could be legally considered. Instead, MKs used the hearing to dredge up unrelated political positions and to launch personal attacks, in open defiance of the law and the legal advisor’s position.
MK Odeh’s January statement was a tweet that read: “Happy about the release of the hostages and prisoners. From here, we must free both peoples from the burden of occupation. We were all born free.” During the hearing, he reaffirmed his support for this statement and others, including his position that Israel is committing crimes against humanity against Palestinians in Gaza.
Standing Up for Hadash MK Ayman Odeh Free Speech in the Knesset
On last Tuesday, June 24, during wars in Gaza and Iran, the Knesset House Committee began the process of expelling MK Ayman Odeh (Hadash). Why? He protected free speech and called for the end of war and occupation. But in a so called “Israel democracy” a political speech by a Hadash MK is grounds for dismissal. Dr Hassan Jabareen of Adalah—The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights, who is serving as Odeh’s legal counsel and is arguing as such.
Att. Jabareen, condemned the process as fundamentally flawed and unlawful, noting that the MKs’ refusal to follow the legal advisor’s ruling violated Odeh’s rights and rendered the entire procedure illegitimate. He emphasized that Odeh’s speech is fully legal and protected. The proceedings confirmed what has been clear from the outset of this process: the expulsion attempt is a dangerous, inciteful escalation in the ongoing political assault against Hadash and Arab Palestinian lawmakers in Israel.
Standing Up for Arab Leader’s Free Speech in the Knesset
As former Executive Director of Breaking the Silence Avner Gvaryahu wrote, Ayman “proves that it is possible to be a proud Palestinian Arab and still work for a better Israeli society for everyone.”
He continued:
Jewish-Arab partnership is not just a matter of social justice or a historical correction. It is the basis of any genuine vision of change in the Middle East. As long as we continue to live in the reality of separation, suspicion and dominance of one group over another, we will continue to walk in the same circles of violence and oppression. Partnership offers another way—a way through, in which the national conflict does not have to define every relationship between Jews and Arabs.
Therefore repelling Ayman from the public sphere is not only an expulsion of an Arab citizen [from the Knesset], but also a continued expulsion of the ideas of the left. This is a clear message [from the government] that the politics of partnership is undesirable, that the public space is only for those willing to remain silent about the occupation and settle for crumbs. It’s part of a broader process of narrowing democratic space and revoking the legitimacy of critical votes.
JD VANCE‘S HISTORIC Full SPEECH at MUNICH: SLAMS European LEADERS on FREE SPEECH
JD Vance delivered a historic full speech at the Munich Security Conference, where he strongly criticized European leaders for their approach to free speech. He specifically targeted the United Kingdom, calling out its restrictive policies and emphasizing the importance of protecting freedom of expression.
Vance eviscerates ‚Soviet‘-style European censorship in address to Munich Security Conference
„What I worry about is the threat from within the retreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values, values shared with the United States of America.“
Vance called out former European Commissioner Thierry Breton, who said in January that if the right wing German AfD party were to win elections in Germany, the results could go the way of Romania.
„These cavalier statements are shocking to American ears,“ said Vance.
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights: STATE/ENTITY – United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
04 Dec 2024
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
JAL
GBR 15/2024
– terrorism
– freedom of opinion and expression
– freedom of peaceful assembly and of association
– privacy
Information received concerning the potentially inappropriate use of provisions of the Terrorism Act 2000, the Terrorism Act 2006, and the Anti-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019. These provisions appear to have been employed to investigate, detain, collect data, and prosecute political activists and journalists, raising concerns about potential infringements of their fundamental
rights.
Alleged victims: 6
(…)
According to the information received:
Powers under counter-terrorism legislation have been used on multiple occasions to examine, detain, and arrest journalists and activists, particularly at the UK border. It is alleged that journalists and activists who are critical of Western foreign policy in the context of the conflict in the Middle East and the Russia-Ukraine war are especially affected by the reported misuse of these powers. In particular, schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000, and schedule 3 of the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019, have been used to examine and obtain data from journalists and activists, including Johanna Ross (Ganyukova), John Laughland, Kit Klarenberg, Craig Murray and Richard Medhurst in circumstances where they appear to have no credible connection to “terrorist” or “hostile” activity. Furthermore, section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000 has been used to charge journalists and activists, including Richard Barnard and Richard Medhurst, for allegedly expressing support for a “proscribed organisation” in the course of activism and media reporting.
Without having knowledge of the material that may have substantiated the investigations or charges, we raise concern about an alleged pattern of overuse, or other misuse, of counter-terrorism legislation to target legitimate freedom of expression and opinion, including public interest media reporting, and related freedoms of peaceful assembly and association, and political
dissent or activism.
(…)
Ben Saul
Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism
Irene Khan
Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
Gina Romero
Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association
Ana Brian Nougrères
Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy
United Nations Censures UK Over Abuse of Terrorism Act Against Journalists and Activists
(February 6, 2025)
Four UN Special Rapporteurs have written jointly to the UK government demanding explanation of its inappropriate persecution of journalists and political activists under the Terrorism Act. They state that those persecuted:
appear to have no credible connection to “terrorist” or “hostile” activity
The cases taken up by the United Nations are those of Johanna Ross (Ganyukova), John Laughland, Kit Klarenberg, Craig Murray (yes, me), Richard Barnard and Richard Medhurst.
RESTORING FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ENDING FEDERAL CENSORSHIP
Section 1. Purpose. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, an amendment essential to the success of our Republic, enshrines the right of the American people to speak freely in the public square without Government interference. Over the last 4 years, the previous administration trampled free speech rights by censoring Americans’ speech on online platforms, often by exerting substantial coercive pressure on third parties, such as social media companies, to moderate, deplatform, or otherwise suppress speech that the Federal Government did not approve. Under the guise of combatting “misinformation,” “disinformation,” and “malinformation,” the Federal Government infringed on the constitutionally protected speech rights of American citizens across the United States in a manner that advanced the Government’s preferred narrative about significant matters of public debate. Government censorship of speech is intolerable in a free society.
Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to: (a) secure the right of the American people to engage in constitutionally protected speech;
(b) ensure that no Federal Government officer, employee, or agent engages in or facilitates any conduct that would unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen;
(c) ensure that no taxpayer resources are used to engage in or facilitate any conduct that would unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen; and
(d) identify and take appropriate action to correct past misconduct by the Federal Government related to censorship of protected speech.
Sec. 3. Ending Censorship of Protected Speech. (a) No Federal department, agency, entity, officer, employee, or agent may act or use any Federal resources in a manner contrary to section 2 of this order.
(b) The Attorney General, in consultation with the heads of executive departments and agencies, shall investigate the activities of the Federal Government over the last 4 years that are inconsistent with the purposes and policies of this order and prepare a report to be submitted to the President, through the Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, with recommendations for appropriate remedial actions to be taken based on the findings of the report.
Trump orders government not to infringe on Americans’ speech, calls for censorship investigation
It’s not yet clear how the order could affect the work that several U.S. agencies do to track false claims that pose threats to election security, including the FBI, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, known as CISA.