The First Amendment Protects Mahmoud Khalil
By Gary Chartier | The Libertarian Institute | March 26, 2025
One of Donald Trump’s first official actions as president was to sign an executive order designed to protect freedom of expression against government pressure. Soon after, Vice President J.D. Vance issued a vigorous challenge at the Munich Security Conference to speech restrictions in Europe. After years of government assaults on freedom of expression, people who cared about First Amendment values were cautiously optimistic.
Then came the administration’s attempted deportation of Mahmoud Khalil.
Khalil, a permanent legal resident of the United States who is married to an American citizen and who is soon to be a father, was detained by the government after he participated in protests focused on the plight of people in Gaza.
In a court filing supporting the decision to deport him, the administration maintained that his “presence or activities in the United States would have serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.”
Obviously, this can’t mean that he was physically impeding the formulation or implementation of foreign policy. He threatened, if he did, to bring about “serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States” because what he did had the potential to change people’s minds. He was targeted because of the anticipated impact of his actual (and potential) expressive activity.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio offered a similar rationale for Khalil’s deportation. “And if you tell us, when you apply for a visa, ‘I’m coming to the U.S. to participate in pro-Hamas events,’ that runs counter to the foreign policy interest of the United States of America,” according to the Secretary. “If you had told us that you were going to do that, we never would have given you the visa.” (He makes a separate point about Khalil’s involvement in disruptive activities on the Columbia University campus, which I’ll bracket here.)
Rubio’s claim about “the foreign policy interest of the United States” makes sense only if, again, the worry is that the kind of protest in which Khalil was involved risked contributing to changes in policy, or at least signaled Khalil’s personal opposition to the that policy. (Rubio conveniently equates current U.S. foreign policy with “the foreign policy interest of the United States.” But let that slide.)
Khalil has been targeted because of core First Amendment activity: speech and assembly.
Rubio and other defenders of the administration’s position might argue for the legitimacy of Khalil’s deportation by arguing that, as a non-citizen, he’s not protected by the First Amendment. But the Constitution’s language makes no reference to citizens. And there are good reasons for treating it as applicable to Khalil.
The Bill of Rights appears to be intended to apply across the board to those affected by the actions of the U.S. government. Does anyone seriously think that the government could deny non-citizens the protection of the Seventh Amendment right to trial by jury in civil cases, or claim that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of excessive bail is inapplicable to non-citizens? Unless the Constitution explicitly limits a given safeguard to citizens, we should read it as protecting everyone the government can impact.
And permanent residents, like Khalil, seem especially worthy of constitutional protection. After all, they are not tourists or brief visitors. They have established substantial ties to the United States and have demonstrated that they are good neighbors. They are often on the road to citizenship.
Whatever we judge to be the primary focus of the First Amendment, singling our people for sanctions because of what they say is deeply problematic. When the government targets the nonviolent expression of particular ideas, on anyone’s part, it sends the message that those ideas are disfavored and that others expressing them can expect to be penalized. Deporting Khalil because of the potential impact of his expressive acts exerts a chilling effect on the expression of officially disapproved ideas about the Middle East—by citizens as well as non-citizens.
The content-focused rationale the government has offered for Khalil’s deportation is a rationale it could invoke to attack citizens for what they say, too. A U.S. citizen who writes an op-ed criticizing some aspect of current foreign policy and whose action the government believes could influence others to avoid supporting its position could be penalized in multiple ways. Citizens (probably) can’t be deported for political dissent. However, if the rationale the government has offered here is upheld, they could be denied other discretionary benefits.
The First Amendment should also be read as protecting Khalil from deportation for the content of his speech because it doesn’t primarily or exclusively serve the interests of speakers. At least as important is the protection it offers to listeners.
Restricting listeners’ access to information undermines democracy and the free formation of public opinion. The more people have the chance to encounter varied voices, the more they have the chance to weigh arguments, evaluate insights, and assess factual claims for themselves. A government that can filter what people hear can artificially insulate its policies against critical push-back and keep them from being altered in light of relevant facts and norms. (Consider, for instance, how frequently governments that rush to war try to censor not only stories about specific military actions or espionage techniques but also arguments for peace.)
There’s no Middle East exception to the First Amendment. The administration can underscore its commitment to freedom of expression by not acting as if there were. The Constitution weighs strongly against deporting Khalil on the basis of what he’s said. Freeing him will benefit not only him and his family but also all Americans.
EU candidate’s pro-Western government arrests autonomous region’s leader
RT | March 27, 2025
A vocal critic of Moldova’s pro-Western government, who leads an autonomous region in the EU candidate state, has denounced her arrest on what she claims to be fabricated criminal charges.
Yevgenia Gutsul was taken into custody on Tuesday evening at the international airport in the Moldovan capital, Chisinau, with the authorities saying she was on a wanted list. In a statement released through her lawyers on Thursday, she accused the government of pursuing a plan to dismantle the region of Gagauzia’s autonomy through lawfare targeting her administration.
“I am behind bars now under trumped up charges, yet my heart and my soul is with you,” she said, addressing the people of Gagauzia.
”This arrest is not a personal attack. It’s part of Chisinau’s grand plan to destroy our autonomy. Law enforcement officials controlled by the [ruling party] PAS have been trying to put pressure on me with bogus criminal cases for two years,” she added.
According to Moldovan media, Gutsul was taken into custody as part of an investigation into the 2023 gubernatorial election in Gagauzia, which she won. Her campaign was accused of financial irregularities. The Moldovan government claims that Gutsul is part of a Russian influence operation aimed at disrupting the country’s attempts to become a member of the EU.
The Gagauz people are a Turkic-speaking, primarily Orthodox Christian ethnic group living in the southern part of Moldova, Their region, Gagauzia, has been granted broad self-government rights. Moldovan President Maia Sandu has questioned Gutsul’s mandate as governor, denouncing her former party ‘Shor’ as a “criminal organization.” In 2023, a court in Chisinau outlawed it.
Gutsul has called on Russian President Vladimir Putin and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to apply pressure on the Sandu administration in defense of Gagauzia’s rights.
On Wednesday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov condemned the arrest, asserting that Chisinau “has decided to pay no heed to the law, democratic principles and political pluralism and to openly pressure political rivals.”
He compared the approach to that of the Romanian government, where a presidential election was recently overturned after a surprise first round victory by an opposition candidate. The constitutional court’s decision was based on claims that Russia interfered in the process, but media reports suggested that the social media campaign cited by officials originated from the ruling party, which sought to undermine a mainstream candidate by boosting an unlikely outsider.
Germany: The AfD party should be banned before the next elections
Remix News | March 25, 2025
The leaders of the SPD and Green Party factions want a ban of the Alternative for Germany (AfD), the second-largest party in the country and the top opposition party, before the next election. The Greens in particular are now urging parliament to submit a motion to ban the party as soon as possible.
The Green party wants the Bundestag to submit a new motion to the Constitutional Court, which would have a final say on banning the party. The original ban motion was initiated by CDU MP Marco Wanderwitz, who retired from politics and is no longer in the new Bundestag, but who is still actively urging the party to be banned.
The Green Party’s managing director, Till Steffen, is putting the pressure on to continue the ban motion “as soon as possible.” The Greens have long pursued a ban against the AfD, as Remix News has previously reported.
The last motion was signed by 100 parliamentarians from all parties, with the exception of the AfD and Free Democrats (FDP). In the new parliament, the FDP is no longer represented.
However, there is one current hiccup, which is the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV). The politicians interested in a ban want the BfV to upgrade the designation of the AfD to a “confirmed right-wing extremist” party. So far, the party has only been labeled a “suspect case” by the powerful domestic intelligence agency, however, in certain states, It is already a “confirmed” case.
The problem is that the BfV currently does not have a president, as the previous one, Thomas Haldenwang of the CDU, already left his position to run as an MP. Haldenwang was blatantly partisan and routinely attacked the AfD in an effort to sink the party.
Due to the absence of a president, the expected report from the BfV to confirm the party as “right-wing extremist” has been delayed. The BfV is unlikely to get a new president before the new chancellor is sworn in. There are worries though from the left that time is running out to ban the party.
The SPD wants to wait for the report to move forward with a ban, but the SPD group manager Katja Mast says the “AfD poses a serious threat to democracy.”
Why is there such a rush when elections are likely four years away? The reason is that the Constitutional Court can take years to decide a case, which means there are fears from the left that the AfD party may be able to run in the next elections.
The CDU and CSU are biding their time and say they will not decide on a ban until the BfV releases their report, but it is perhaps a foregone conclusion they will support such a ban, with a few dissenters.
The Greens are furious that the report is not being submitted fast enough.
The Federal Office for Consumer Protection cited the election campaign as the reason for postponing it. And the election is over,” said Steffen, who says the report not being released yet is “incomprehensible.”
Not everyone believes a ban is possible at this point. In an interview with Remix News, Junge Freiheit editor-in-chief Dieter Stein said he did not believe a ban of the AfD is possible at this point.
The party just hit a new polling high of 23.5 percent in the latest Insa poll, making it difficult to imagine the government banning a party that has nearly a quarter of all voters backing it. However, the EU mainstream may have been encouraged by the results in Romania, which saw the top contender, Călin Georgescu, arrested and banned from running in the presidential election.
Ukrainian MP claims Zelensky tried to kill him
Artyom Dmitruk © Social Media
RT | March 23, 2025
Artyom Dmitruk, a fugitive member of the Verkhovna Rada, has claimed that Vladimir Zelensky directed the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) to kidnap and kill him. He said that SBU agents detained and severely beat him during an incident in the Black Sea port city of Odessa in 2022.
Dmitruk was elected to parliament as part of Zelensky’s Servant of the People party in 2019. He was expelled from the party two years later and continued serving as an independent MP.
He fled the country in August 2024, claiming that the authorities had plotted to “liquidate” him.
The Prosecutor General’s Office has since placed Dmitruk on a wanted list on suspicion that he assaulted a police officer and attempted to steal his gun.
In a video posted to X on Friday, Dmitruk detailed his accusations against Zelensky and his chief of staff, Andrey Yermak, as well as sharing photos of his injuries.
“I was brutally beaten, tortured in basements, and nearly killed on Zelensky’s orders for my opposition activities,” the self-exiled politician wrote in an accompanying post. He insisted that the government targeted him because of his “political activities.”
Dmitruk claimed that in 2022, Viktor Dorovsky, the head of the SBU office in Odessa, threatened him over the phone. “We’re going to kill you. We’ll cut your head off,” Dorovsky said, according to Dmitruk.
The politician said that a group of SBU agents abducted him on March 4, 2022 as he was delivering aid to a military checkpoint. According to Dmitruk, the agents put a bag over his head and handcuffed him. “They beat me severely with rifle butts, feet, and hands. I lost consciousness.”
Dmitruk claimed that he was taken to a basement where he was “tortured” and had his nose broken. He said the agents wanted to force him into making incriminating statements. They drove him to several locations, including a regional SBU office, where the threats and beatings continued, he added.
He went on to say that the agents threatened him with a gun and made him promise on camera that he would stop criticizing Zelensky, Yermak, and the government. According to Dmitruk, the agents eventually dropped him off at a parking lot.
“The order to commit these crimes against me was given personally by Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Andriy Yermak, and the head of the Odessa SBU Viktor Dorovsky,” Dmitruk wrote on X, using the Ukrainian spelling of the names.
“There are thousands of stories like mine. There are people who have been sitting in the basements of the SBU for more than two years,” he said.
US arrests Georgetown University student for criticizing Israel
Indian citizen Badar Khan Suri has been arrested in the US over criticism of Israel
Press TV – March 20, 2025
Indian citizen and Georgetown University student Badar Khan Suri has been arrested by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents due to his criticism of Israel’s actions in Gaza.
Sari, who is a post-doctorate fellow in peace and conflict studies at Georgetown University in Washington, is currently being held at an ICE detention facility in Virginia without contact with lawyers and family.
ICE has detained Sari even though he is a US permanent resident.
After his arrest, the dean of Georgetown University made a statement that Sari had not engaged in any illegal activities or posed a threat to campus security.
In a statement, the University Board of Georgetown Law SJP has called his arrest to be for expressing “constitutionally protected speech,” warning that if such arrests continue “higher education will crumble.”
Sari is believed to have been specifically targeted because of the anti-genocide activism of his wife Mapheze Saleh.
Saleh, a US citizen, is a prominent pro-Palestine activist who has come under attack by pro-Israel political organizations.
Jenin Younes, a lawyer and civil liberties expert, believes that Sari’s arrest is a case of citizens being held guilty by association.
“If they can’t target a Palestinian activist for deportation because they’re a citizen, they’ll target their spouse instead,” Younes said in an interview.
Imprisoning and punishing family members of political dissidents is a common repression tactic used by dictatorial regimes.
Google to acquire Israeli firm staffed by former Unit 8200 officers
The Cradle | March 20, 2025
On 18 March, Google’s parent company, Alphabet, announced plans to acquire the Israeli cloud security startup Wiz in a $32 billion deal, marking one of the largest-ever influxes of former Israeli intelligence officers into a US tech company.
“Google LLC today announced it has signed a definitive agreement to acquire Wiz, Inc., a leading cloud security platform headquartered in New York, for $32 billion, subject to closing adjustments, in an all-cash transaction,” the US tech giant said on Tuesday.
Reports from western media indicate that following the acquisition, Wiz will keep its brand and operate independently from Google. Additionally, an extra retention bonus will be offered to employees, potentially totaling $1 billion, along with a break-up fee that Google would owe to Wiz if antitrust regulators block the deal.
The Israeli tech company was founded in 2020 by four former members of Unit 8200.
Wiz employs around 1,995 people, with most of its sales and marketing personnel located in North America and Europe. However, most of its engineering staff is based in Tel Aviv, a major hub for cybersecurity talent primarily linked to Unit 8200 alumni.
A 2018 study cited by Haaretz estimated that 80 percent of the 2,300 people who founded Israel’s 700 cybersecurity companies at the time had come through Israeli army intelligence. Two years earlier, Forbes estimated that over 1,000 companies were founded by Unit 8200 alumni.
“There are at least five tech companies started by Unit 8200 alumni publicly traded in the US, together worth around $160 billion. Private companies started by ex-8200 soldiers are worth billions more,” the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported last year.
“While Unit 8200 alumni once talked about their service in hushed tones, they now tout it in press releases to attract clients and investment money for their startups,” the report highlights.
As an integral part of Israel’s intelligence apparatus, Unit 8200 conducts signal intelligence (SIGINT) and cyber operations, emphasizing advanced technology, cybersecurity, and intelligence gathering.
Unit 8200 played a crucial role in the planning and execution of Israel’s pager terror attacks in Lebanon last year. Specifically, western security sources revealed that the unit was involved in embedding explosives inside the pagers ordered by Hezbollah, with the operation reportedly taking over a year to plan.
The Israeli spy unit is developing an artificial intelligence (AI) tool similar to ChatGPT, which is “capable of answering questions about people it is monitoring and providing insights into the massive volumes of surveillance data it collects.”
“It’s not just about preventing shooting attacks, I can track human rights activists, monitor Palestinian construction in Area C [of the West Bank]. I have more tools to know what every person in the West Bank is doing,” an informed source told The Guardian earlier this month.
Anne Applebaum of the Atlantic Magazine & Columbia’s Pulitzer Board advocated killing Palestinian journalists
Why does the “safety” framework never apply to Arab students?
By Adam Johnson | The Column | March 14, 2025
In 2002, Columbia University Pulitzer Prize board member, alleged “anti-authoritarian” expert, and Atlantic Magazine columnist Anne Applebaum explicitly advocated in Slate magazine that Israel kill Palestinian journalists for the crime of making Israelis and Americans look bad. In her article, “Kill The Messenger,” there is little subtlety or equivocation about not only Israel’s right to blow up Palestinian media infrastructure, but to kill reporters for simply doing their job:
“… the official Palestinian media is the right place for Israel to focus its ire. In fact, in the reporting of the Middle East conflict, which almost always focuses on yesterday’s violence and today’s body count, the crucial role of the Voice of Palestine—the official broadcasting arm of the Palestinian Authority—has often been overlooked. Nor is the problem just radio and television. If you want to understand why the Oslo peace process failed, or where suicide martyrs come from, it is worth taking a closer look at all the Palestinian Authority’s official media…
Until then, the Voice of Palestine will remain what it has become: a combatant—and therefore a legitimate target—in a painful, never-ending, low-intensity war.”
This article, which Applebaum has never explained or renounced, is useful when contextualizing the current witch hunt on college campuses targeting anti-Gaza genocide protestors under the Planck Length-thin auspices of promoting “student safety” and “combatting anti-semitism.”
What’s especially noteworthy is that Applebaum never even bothers laundering her promotion of the execution of Palestinians media workers in the language of “terrorism” or “material support for terrorism”—she is simply lobbying Israel kill Palestinian media workers for the mere fact that they are making Israel and the US look bad. Indeed, a key example of coverage justifying their killing Appelbaum cites is an extremely banal political cartoon. As she writes:
… they are subtly, and sometimes not so subtly, anti-American. A recent cartoon in Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, the Palestinian Authority official daily, showed a blindfolded George Bush aiming missiles indiscriminately at a dartboard covered with the names of Arab states. One of his darts had hit the bull’s eye marked “Afghanistan.” Another had gone astray and hit an Arab man in the back. The caption read, “The war in Afghanistan is only the beginning.” While there is plenty of other anti-Americanism in other Palestinian media, and indeed in Arab media everywhere, this is the voice of the Palestinian Authority, the government of Yasser Arafat, a frequent visitor to the White House.
Applebaum believes a cartoon depicting George W. Bush as a warmonger makes Palestinian media a legitimate target worthy of summary killing. “Anti-Americanism,” one is lead to believe is not only a form of racism but a mode of speech that strips one of their protected civilian status.
This is an extraordinary, illiberal, and racist opinion, yet Applebaum is allowed to remain in good standing among liberal and academic elites because racism and casual bloodlust targeting Palestinians and Arabs simply doesn’t register or matter in the “student safety” calculus.
Imagine, if you will, a Columbia professor or Pulitzer prize committee member advocating the summary killing of Israeli or American media workers because they undermined the cause of Palestinian liberation in their reporting. If this article surfaced it would stir up immediate outrage and condemnation, the academic in question would be quickly fired, apologies would be made and and new policies would be promised. But with Applebaum calling for the killing of Palestinian reporters, an article that goes semi-viral on Twitter every few months, no one cares. Nothing happens. It’s just another routine, normal Serious Foreign Policy opinion from a Serious Foreign Policy Expert.
Columbia University President Katrina Armstrong is currently working with Trump officials, DHS, ICE, and other government agents seeking to deport and imprison anti-Israel protestors for the simple fact that—according to Trump officials themselves— they have ideological viewpoints the Trump regime doesn’t like. Columbia, and many other universities, are maximally complying with these demands ostensibly to promote “campus safety” and “combat hatred.” Indeed, making students “feel safe” has been the high-minded liberal reason for virtually every university administrator cracking down on free speech, both before and after Trump took office. “We are focused,” Armstrong said in a press release last year, “on ensuring [student] safety, supporting their wellbeing, and protecting their ability to learn.”
“I have said it before, and I will say it again,” Armstrong insisted, “discrimination and harassment, including hate language, calls for violence, and the targeting of any individuals or groups based on their beliefs, ancestry, religion, gender identity, or any other identity or affiliation have no place at Columbia.”
Except that it does. Columbia, which manages and awards the Pulitzer prize, has no problem putting someone with a history of advocating the killing of Arab civilians in a position of power, helping determine who in journalism is worthy of its highest award, and creating an atmosphere on campus that makes clear to its Palestinian students that they are subhuman and unworthy of normal protections under the laws of war.
Using Medicalization to Suppress the Exercise of First Amendment Rights
By Adam Dick | Ron Paul Institute | March 19, 2025
A repugnant tactic of authoritarianism is categorizing people’s desire for or exercise of freedom as illness that government should suppress. An example of this was the deeming of dissidents in the Soviet Union as mentally ill to justify their detention and punishment.
In America, there has long been resistance against an effort to similarly have the United States government medicalize the exercise of gun rights as a means to circumvent the constitutional protection of the right to bear arms contained in the Second Amendment. In the 1990s this resistance led to congressional imposition of a spending prohibition against the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) advocating or promoting gun control.
The effort to prevent the US government from using medicalization to crack down on gun rights appears to have had a success in the new Trump administration with the removal from the HHS website of a guns and public health advisory from the preceding Biden administration. Abené Clayton reported Monday at the Guardian :
The Trump administration has removed former surgeon general Vivek Murthy’s advisory on gun violence as a public health issue from the US Department of Health and Human Services’ website. This move was made to comply with Donald Trump’s executive order to protect second amendment rights, a White House official told the Guardian.
The strange thing is that while the Trump administration appears to be taking action to cut off HHS threats to Second Amendment rights, HHS is helping lead Trump administration efforts to expand US government threats to First Amendment rights. Medicalization to restrict free speech, assembly, and petition is on the ascendancy at HHS as demonstrated by a March 3 announcement by HHS, the Department of Education (ED), and the General Services Administration (GSA) concerning the US government’s Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism, created the month before, reviewing actions or inactions of Columbia University relative to “antisemitism” and potential penalties that may be imposed upon that university. This is all justified in the announcement by reference to a January 29 executive order of President Donald Trump that employs a peculiarly expanded definition of antisemitism incorporated into an executive order from Trump’s first term that includes positions against the Israel government in addition to the commonly understood definition that concerns positions against an ethnicity or religion.
“Anti-Semitism – like racism – is a spiritual and moral malady that sickens societies and kills people with lethalities comparable to history’s most deadly plagues,” declared HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in the announcement. That is medicalization in a nutshell: Your “bad thoughts” are a plague the government must stop to protect public health.
Four days later — on March 7, HHS, ED, and GSA were back with a new announcement that, due to review by the Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism, about 400 million dollars in US grants to Columbia University had been canceled, with more grant cancelations expected to follow. Then, on March 13 the HHS, ED, and GSA followed up with a letter to Columbia University using the denial of funding as leverage to demand the university crack down on free speech, assembly and petition, as well as change, and even hand to US government control over, a variety of university policies and procedures.
Meanwhile, the US government is making an example of Mahmoud Khalil who was involved in protests challenging US foreign policy and related to Israel at Columbia University. The US government has arrested and detained him, and is seeking his deportation, because Khalil apparently did nothing more than exercise First Amendment protected rights.
These actions against Columbia University are not one-off. A February 28 press release from the Department of Justice (DOJ) listed ten universities — Columbia University plus George Washington University; Harvard University; Johns Hopkins University; New York University; Northwestern University; the University of California, Los Angeles; the University of California, Berkeley; the University of Minnesota; and the University of Southern California — as subject to visits from the Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism because their campuses “have experienced antisemitic incidents since October 2023.” Expect the list to keep growing.
Leo Terrell, described in the February DOJ press release as “[l]eading Task Force member and Senior Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights,” made clear in an included quote that the Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism means business. He stated:
The Task Force’s mandate is to bring the full force of the federal government to bear in our effort to eradicate Anti-Semitism, particularly in schools. These visits are just one of many steps this Administration is taking to deliver on that commitment.
It looks like we are witnessing the beginning of a major crackdown on First Amendment rights. The US government, however, will claim this development is nothing to worry about because the purpose is to make America healthy again.
NSW Premier Chris Minns Calls Free Speech a Government Liability
By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | March 18, 2025
Chris Minns, Premier of New South Wales, Australia, has done something that politicians rarely do — he’s said the quiet part out loud. In a rare moment of honesty, he’s admitted that the government sees free speech as a liability.
“I recognize and I fully said from the beginning, we don’t have the same freedom of speech laws that they have in the United States, and the reason for that is that we want to hold together a multicultural community and have people live in peace.”
Meaning: Your rights are negotiable, and the price is social harmony — as defined by the state.
The absurdity of this argument is hard to overstate. Historically, the country thrived on its rough-and-tumble political culture, where disagreements were hashed out in public rather than smothered under layers of legalese. The idea that Australians must now muzzle themselves to accommodate imported conflicts is an outright admission of failure by the political class.
Minns and his allies argue that restricting speech is necessary because multiculturalism has made Australia too volatile to handle open debate. But let’s take a step back. Why is Australia suddenly on edge? Is it because everyday Australians have become more hateful and intolerant, or is it because the government has spent decades encouraging division through identity politics?
The immediate context for Minns’ comments is the recent passage of hate speech laws, pushed through Parliament in a frenzy of moral panic. The justification? A crisis that turned out to be a hoax, reportedly concocted by criminals looking for lighter sentences — something the government allegedly knew early on.
MLC John Ruddick didn’t mince words when he addressed this in Parliament:
“Parliament was misinformed by the Minns government about the urgency of the bills referred to in one A, B, and C… this House calls on the Minns government to repeal the bills… and apologize for both misleading this Parliament, preventing a Parliamentary Inquiry, and further curbing free speech principles by these reactionary bills.”
Minns’ response? Doubling down:
“There have been some that have been agitating in the Parliament to nullify the laws to remove them off the statute books. Think about what kind of toxic message that would send to the NSW community.
“And I think the advocates for those changes need to explain what do they want people to have the right to say?
“What kind of racist abuse do they want to see or to be able to lawfully see on the streets of Sydney?”
This is an old trick — framing any challenge to speech restrictions as a demand for open racism. It’s dishonest, it’s lazy, and it conveniently ignores the fact that these laws will never be enforced evenly.
These laws will be used against dissenters. Against people who question government policies. Against critics of the ruling ideology.
If democracy means anything, it means the right to speak freely — even when that speech is unpopular. Even when it makes politicians uncomfortable. Because when free speech is sacrificed on the altar of “social harmony,” what you’re left with isn’t peace — it’s silence. And that silence is exactly what governments crave.
Rick Sanchez “threatened with prison” over work with RT
RT | March 18, 2025
Former RT host and longtime television journalist Rick Sanchez has spoken about his experience with the Russian broadcaster in a newly released interview with Tucker Carlson. Once one of RT’s highest-rated anchors, Sanchez revealed that he was forced out of his job last summer under pressure from the administration of former US President Joe Biden, which he says even threatened him with prison over ties with RT. He also revealed that his departure was foreshadowed by an unexpected phone call from an “old friend,” a warning which he described as a case study in the decline of free speech in the US.
Press freedom in the US
Sanchez has criticized the state of press freedom in the US, particularly under the Biden administration. The veteran journalist expressed concerns over increasing restrictions on alternative media voices, arguing that journalists who deviate from government-approved narratives often face professional consequences. He described a growing atmosphere of intolerance for dissenting perspectives, particularly regarding coverage of international conflicts.
Sanchez claimed that mainstream media outlets have become overly aligned with government interests, limiting diverse viewpoints and discouraging critical journalism. “If you don’t toe the line, if you don’t say what they want you to say, you’re out,” he said, emphasizing the pressures faced by journalists covering global affairs, especially those related to Russia and Ukraine. He suggested that reporters are under immense pressure to conform to prevailing narratives or risk retaliation.
Experience working for RT
Reflecting on his time at the Russian news network RT, Sanchez described it as an unexpectedly positive experience. He recalled initially joining the network with some hesitation but soon realizing that he was given considerable editorial freedom.
Sanchez noted that, unlike in many Western outlets, he was not instructed on what to say or how to frame his reports. He characterized his time at RT as “almost nirvana” in terms of journalistic independence, a stark contrast to his experience in US media. However, he also acknowledged that working for a Russian-backed network came with significant scrutiny, particularly from American authorities.
Mysterious phone call from an “old friend”
Sanchez also revealed that he had received a cryptic telephone call from an “old friend” shortly before he was forced to cut ties with RT. He described the conversation as unsettling, with the caller warning him that the people at the government agency he now works for “don’t necessarily like some of the things that you’re saying.”
While he did not disclose the caller’s identity, Sanchez suggested that the person had inside knowledge of actions being taken against him and that the call was meant to intimidate him into resigning before more severe repercussions followed.
Threats of prison
Expanding on the pressures he faced, Sanchez stated that he was not only forced to leave RT but also threatened with legal action. He alleged that US authorities made it clear that his association with the network could result in imprisonment.
“They were like, no, you violate the order and you’re going to prison,” Sanchez revealed, emphasizing the seriousness of the threats. While he did not specify the exact nature of the charges he was warned about, he argued that such actions demonstrate how far the US government is willing to go to suppress dissenting voices.
US tendency to create a villain
One of the central themes of Sanchez’s interview was the American tendency to create a villain in political discourse. He observed that the US media frequently needs an adversary to rally public opinion against, whether it be Russia, China, or a domestic political figure.
Sanchez warned that this pattern stifles critical thinking and forces audiences into a black-and-white worldview where certain countries or individuals are portrayed as purely evil while others are beyond reproach. He argued that this mindset contributes to unnecessary conflicts and prevents meaningful diplomatic engagement.
Sanchez’s perspective on the state of US media
Sanchez offered a harsh critique of American journalism, claiming that many mainstream outlets have abandoned their role as independent watchdogs. He accused the media of prioritizing corporate and political interests over factual reporting, resulting in a narrow and often misleading portrayal of global events.
He further claimed that media consolidation has contributed to the problem, as a handful of powerful companies control most of the news Americans consume. This, according to Sanchez, has led to an environment where only certain viewpoints are allowed airtime, while dissenting opinions are marginalized or outright censored.
Pinning hopes on Trump to reverse trend
Looking ahead, Sanchez expressed hope that US President Donald Trump could lead to a reversal of sanctions imposed on RT and other alternative media sources. He suggested that Trump, who has had a contentious relationship with mainstream US media, might be more inclined to allow greater media pluralism.
“The Trump administration will undo this because things are moving and there’s negotiations now with Russia,” Sanchez said. “And I understand the Trump administration is trying to remove some of the silly sanctions that we have on them that are just ridiculous.”
Sanchez argued that lifting restrictions on foreign-backed outlets would be a step toward restoring genuine press freedom and allowing Americans access to a broader range of perspectives. He concluded that, regardless of political affiliations, the suppression of alternative voices ultimately harms democracy.
UK Terrorism Law Overhaul Blasted as “Unacceptable” Threat to Free Speech
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | March 16, 2025
Jonathan Hall, a UK government-appointed Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, has dubbed reforms announced by PM Keir Starmer in this legislative area as “unacceptable” – specifically in how that would restrict freedom of expression.
These changes came as part of the Labour government’s reaction to the Southport murders and subsequent protests and unrest.
The issue addressed by Hall’s report published this week is the legal definition of terrorism, and whether it needs to be expanded to acts of extreme violence like those perpetrated by Axel Rudakubana in Southport last summer.
Hall’s overall conclusion is that there is no need to amend the definition of terrorism, as it is “already wide.”
One of the implications, should proposed changes be adopted, concerns speech, writes the terrorism watchdog. He warns about risks involving “major false positives” – i.e., persons that would get prosecuted although they cannot be considered terrorists “by any stretch of the imagination.”
However, there is also the issue of definition expansion into what Hall refers to as novel territory.
“For example, any person who glorified ‘extreme violence’ would be at risk of arrest and prosecution as a terrorist. People swapping violent war footage would be at risk of encouraging terrorism, resulting in unacceptable restriction on freedom of expression,” he writes.
Hall also argues against the notion that it is possible to examine the browsing history of a perpetrator like Rudakubana and from that alone deduce which point in his online activities fatefully influenced his real world actions.
Expansion of the definition of terrorism to include such crimes – as essentially a way to give the authorities greater powers – is not likely to be effective for the purposes declared by the government, Hall suggests.
Many opponents of the UK government’s decisions and initiatives in the wake of the Southport murders have been warning that redefining legislation paves the way for greater mass surveillance capabilities.
Hall thinks that expectations when it comes to actually dealing with extreme violence in the proposed way might be unrealistic.
“There is no supercomputer or algorithm that can magically scan all online communications and tell who is an attacker and who is a fantasist,” he observes.
In order to avoid what the report describes as an extremely high risk of unintended consequences of rushed changes to the definition of terrorism, Hall advises the government to consider “a new offense, adapted from terrorism legislation, to deal with non-terrorist mass casualty attack-planning.”
Featured Video
The Sordid History of the CIA – Part 2
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Book Review
Jeffrey Epstein: A Jewish Individual?
The Occidental Observer | February 5, 2023
One Nation Under Blackmail: The Sordid Union between Intelligence and Organized Crime that Gave Rise to Jeffrey Epstein (Volume 1 & 2) by Whitney Webb
“Far from being an anomaly, Epstein was one of several men who, over the past century, have engaged in sexual blackmail activities designed to obtain damaging information (i.e., “intelligence”) on powerful individuals with the goal of controlling their activities and securing their compliance.”[1]
Jeffrey Epstein is dead and Ghislaine Maxwell is locked away in prison, and the thought-makers of our world seem keen to let the more explosive parts of the scandal dissipate from the public consciousness. As far as the mainstream media is concerned, Epstein and Maxwell were little more than well-connected socialites who ran a sex-trafficking ring for the rich and the powerful, and the focus has shifted instead to the criminal and civil cases seeking to achieve redress for the victims of sexual abuse.
On occasion some newspaper articles will mention the hidden cameras littered across Epstein’s properties, others the reams of CDs and hard drives found within them during the FBI raids. Altogether missing from the Netflix documentaries (Jeffrey Epstein: Filthy Rich [2020] and Ghislaine Maxwell: Filthy Rich [2022]) or the articles that spend their time narrowly focusing on the links between Epstein and Bill Gates, is the acknowledgement of the true nature of Epstein himself and the ultimate purpose of this sex-trafficking of minors — a sexual blackmail operation.
Not everyone is cowardly enough to let these controversial aspects lie untouched, as the newly released two-volume book One Nation Under Blackmail by independent reporter Whitney Webb seeks to blow wide open this media-enforced blackout. Utilizing primarily open-source information (that is, publicly accessible information such as books, newspapers articles and government reports),[2] Webb’s book delves into the life and times of Jeffrey Epstein and his deep ties to Jewish billionaires and Israeli intelligence. … continue
Blog Roll
Recent Comments
Aletho News- Jeffrey Epstein’s sinister shadow over West Asia
- The Sordid History of the CIA – Part 2
- French FM under fire over ‘false’ claims about UN rapporteur
- Israel Wants ISIS-Linked Militias To Control Rafah Crossing — The New Order in Gaza
- ISIS never left Syria, it just changed uniforms
- Why ARE the US and Israel Obsessed With Eliminating Iran’s Ballistic Missiles?
- Kremlin comments on EU ‘myopia’ over dialogue with Russia
- Russia more adapted to contemporary military technology than NATO
- Germany puts caveat on more missiles for Ukraine
- UK High Court rules Palestine Action ban unlawful
- If Americans Knew
- Noor’s short life of unimaginable suffering
- Israel Destroyed Gaza’s Hospitals. Now It’s Banning Doctors Without Borders.
- Is Spite of What Zionists Say, It’s a Good Thing to Criticize Governments
- Palestinian mother, daughter recount strip searches, harsh conditions in Israeli detention
- Israel used weapons in Gaza that made thousands of Palestinians evaporate
- ADL’s Stats Twist Israel’s Critics Into Antisemites
- Why Is the World Silent When the Gaza Genocide Is Not Over?
- In Gaza: 8,000 bodies under rubble, 3,000 missing – Not a ceasefire Day 126
- AZAPAC, the new PAC opposing Israeli domination of U.S policies
- Haim Saban: Billionaire for Israel
- No Tricks Zone
- Unfudging The Data: Dutch Meteorological Institute Reinstates Early 20th Centruy Heat Waves It Had Erased Earlier
- German Gas Crisis…Chancellor Merz Allegedly Bans Gas Debate Ahead of Elections!
- Pollen Reconstructions Show The Last Glacial’s Warming Events Were Global, 10x Greater Than Modern
- Germany’s Natural Gas Storage Level Dwindles To Just 28%… Increasingly Critical
- New Study Rebuts The Assumption That Anthropogenic CO2 Molecules Have ‘Special’ Properties
- Climate Scientist Who Predicted End Of “Heavy Frost And Snow” Now Refuses Media Inquiries
- Polar Bear Numbers Rising And Health Improving In Areas With The Most Rapid Sea Ice Decline
- One Reason Only For Germany’s Heating Gas Crisis: Its Hardcore-Dumbass Energy Policy
- 130 Years Later: The CO2 Greenhouse Effect Is Still Only An Imaginary-World Thought Experiment
- New Study Affirms Rising CO2’s Greening Impact Across India – A Region With No Net Warming In 75 Years
Aletho News 