The End of Free Speech?

Spread the love

Original article by Toni Aguilar Rosenthal republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).

Pro-Palestinian protesters rally in support of Mahmoud Khalil outside of the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse, where a hearing is underway regarding Khalil’s arrest, in New York City on March 12, 2025. (Photo: Charly Triballeau/AFP via Getty Images)

If the White House can punish anybody who engages in speech it dislikes, nobody will be free to criticize the government—and corporate criminals will be free to run amok.

Earlier this March, agents from the Department of Homeland Security, or DHS, arrested Mahmoud Khalil at his Columbia University-owned apartment building in New York City. Khalil, a lawful permanent resident of the United States, was then promptly disappeared by federal agents, who refused to tell Khalil’s wife (a U.S. citizen) why he was being detained or where he was being held. He has since been found by his attorneys and partner in a private Louisiana detention facility notorious for abuse. His deportation was successfully, though only temporarily, halted by a federal judge.

An initial hearing in Khalil’s case was subsequently heard—without him present—in New York City. There, the Department of Justice defended the kidnapping, and backed the White House’s claimed rationale: the Trump administration doesn’t approve of Khalil’s speech, and therefore it has the right to forgo due process, revoke his green card without judicial order, and deport him.

Khalil is a prominent pro-Palestinian leader at Columbia University. He was one of students’ lead negotiators during the anti-genocide encampments that formed on its campus in 2024. It is this right to speech, enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, and affirmed over and over and over again, that President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio are endeavoring to unilaterally, and with no constraints, gut.

Trump and his allies seemingly hope to manufacture a future in which any public critic of the administration or its friends can be defined, and prosecuted, as a “terrorist” for whom basic civil liberties can be summarily suspended.

Donald Fuhrump says that Amerikkka doesn't bother with crimes or charges anymore, not being 100% Amerikkkan and opposing his real estate intentions is enough.
Donald Fuhrump says that Amerikkka doesn’t bother with crimes or charges anymore, not being 100% Amerikkkan and opposing his real estate intentions is enough. [dizzy: Original article modified by the inclusion of this image and caption.]

To this end, the federal government has made no case that Khalil has committed a crime. Instead, the Trump administration has continuously boasted that Khalil is being targeted with the full force of the state for engaging in speech it doesn’t like; speech that is unambiguously guaranteed by the First Amendment, and that the White House now seeks to classify as “terrorism.”

Should Trump and Rubio succeed, as The Intercept aptly summarized, it will symbolize the death of free speech for American citizens and green-card holders alike.

Of course, it isn’t just Khalil—though if the government succeeds in his case it will be a chilling bellwether for the state of speech and protest in the Trump years and beyond. Even just in the weeks since kidnapping Khalil, it’s been reported that DHS officers have arrested another student protester at Columbia, stripped a different Columbia student of their visa status, denied a French scientist entry to the United States reportedly because of their expressed political disagreement with the administration, disappeared dozens of New Mexico residents, and more.

Of course, this playbook isn’t new, and Republicans have long sought to gut protected speech, and protected protest in particular. Indeed, dozens of Stop Cop City protesters and organizers are still navigating an abusive investigation and prosecution regime in Georgia that functionally seeks to render public displays of political dissent as violent conspiracy and “domestic terrorism,” including speech activities as mundane as handing out pamphlets.

As baseless and unconstitutional as those prosecutions were and still are, it’s this principle that is being pushed to new and even-more horrifying depths, as Trump and his allies seemingly hope to manufacture a future in which any public critic of the administration or its friends can be defined, and prosecuted, as a “terrorist” for whom basic civil liberties can be summarily suspended.

Indeed, Donald Trump, while turning the White House into a car dealership earlier this month, told reporters that people protesting Elon Musk’s hostile takeover of the U.S. federal government at Tesla storefronts, or protesting “any company,” should be labeled domestic terrorists, and that was something he “will do.”

Should the political persecution of Khalil succeed, it will foster a new era of the militarized American police state that greenlights the arbitrary and capricious abduction of organizers, dissidents, and critics of the Trump administration and the corporations it serves.

It should not need to be said, but to say it anyway: If foundational constitutional rights can be unilaterally suspended by the government, with no trial or even formal documentation of so-called wrongdoing, then those rights do not actually exist for anyone.

Who stands to benefit from such a bleak future? Advocates for authoritarianism for one, and corporations for another.

While the executive branch targets protesters’ rights to speech on White House orders, Trump’s own corporate allies and donors are pursuing adjacent tactics to divest normal people of the right to criticize the corporate hegemons ruining our lives.

Greenpeace, for example, just lost the trial brought against it by Energy Transfer, which seeks to functionally sue the group out of existence in the U.S. for criticizing the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL). That notorious project, controlled by Energy Transfer, is well-known for its environmental racism and for deploying extreme force against environmental advocates, Indigenous communities, and others who opposed it.

Greenpeace is set to appeal the verdict, but if Energy Transfer should ultimately succeed, it would not just spell the end of Greenpeace’s U.S. operations, but will also usher in a new era in which corporate money can not just silence, but wholly eradicate, organizations that are critical of corporate polluters, labor abusers, price-gougers, and more. Such a future would place a price tag on First Amendment protections, with only the most well-resourced entities in the country seemingly eligible to enjoy it, and everyone else left vulnerable to their whims and machinations.

The political kidnapping of Mahmoud Khalil is an egregious attempt to undo 233 years of American constitutional law, and—regardless of what Trump or others claim—threatens to end the right to free speech, and democracy, as we know it. Should the political persecution of Khalil succeed, it will foster a new era of the militarized American police state that greenlights the arbitrary and capricious abduction of organizers, dissidents, and critics of the Trump administration and the corporations it serves. That, to be clear, would wholly cement the United States’ descent into full-fledged fascism.

Crucially, though, even if they fail to make Khalil the defining, and chilling, example of a new epoch of American political prisoners, Donald Trump and his allies in and outside of government have made it clear: They want to eliminate the First Amendment, and will do whatever it takes to do so.

Original article by Toni Aguilar Rosenthal republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).

Orcas discuss how Trump was re-elected and him being an insane, xenophobic Fascist.
Orcas discuss how Trump was re-elected and him being an insane, xenophobic Fascist.
Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.
Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.
Continue ReadingThe End of Free Speech?

Heathrow expansion cannot be quick fix to economy, campaigners warn

Spread the love

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/heathrow-expansion-cannot-be-quick-fix-to-economy-campaigners-warn

Activists from Fossil Free London and Green New Deal Rising take part in a protest against a third runway at Heathrow, and expansion at Gatwick and Luton, outside Siemens Healthineers in Eynsham, Oxfordshire, January 29, 2025

HEATHROW expansion cannot be the quick fix to the economy, campaigners warned today after the government backed a new multibillion-pound investment programme.

The airport’s chief executive Thomas Woldbye announced funding for upgrades and expansion ahead of its proposal for a third runway, expected to be submitted to the government this summer.

The government said that the investment programme will secure thousands of steel jobs by increasing the demand for British-made steel.

But polling by climate charities suggests a majority of the public believes expansion is the “wrong priority,” with 67 per cent of respondents also saying they did not see much, if any, benefit to taxpayers.

No Third Runway Coalition chairman Paul McGuinness called the announcement “almost Orwellian,” arguing that the government had relied on a Heathrow-commissioned report to promote the project rather than its own Treasury assessment.

Greenpeace UK’s chief scientist Dr Doug Parr said that the “real winners” will be Mr Woldbye and “the rest of the polluting aviation industry.”

“The only ‘perks’ for most people will be noise, air pollution and climate emissions,” he said.

Dr Parr said a third runway is “bad economics,” saying: “Instead of picking up any old polluting project from the discard pile, the Chancellor should focus on green industries that can attract investment and bring economic and social benefits for years to come, like secure jobs, affordable energy bills and cheaper, better transport.”

Continues at https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/heathrow-expansion-cannot-be-quick-fix-to-economy-campaigners-warn

Continue ReadingHeathrow expansion cannot be quick fix to economy, campaigners warn

Labour MPs at ‘breaking point’ with Keir Starmer over North Sea row

Spread the love

https://www.thenational.scot/news/24909299.labour-mps-breaking-point-keir-starmer-north-sea-row

The Prime Minister is facing a growing internal backlash from Labour MPs after Treasury sources indicated Rachel Reeves is likely to give her backing for the proposed Rosebank development (Image: PA/Henry Nicholls)

WESTMINSTER politicians are reportedly at “breaking point” with Keir Starmer over the potential of approving a new oil and gas field in the North Sea.

The Prime Minister is facing a growing internal backlash from Labour MPs after Treasury sources indicated Rachel Reeves is likely to give her backing for the proposed Rosebank development.

MPs have reportedly called for Starmer to reiterate his own commitments to no further oil and gas licences.

Last week a judge ruled the Rosebank development, which was given the green light by the previous Tory administration, as unlawful following a legal challenge brought by Greenpeace and Uplift.

Previously the energy secretary, Ed Miliband, described the licence issued to Rosebank as “climate vandalism”.

Reeves is reportedly supportive of a new application for environmental consent for the North Sea development, despite Labour’s manifesto promising not to issue any new exploration licences.

MPs who are concerned about the climate emergency are reported to be likely to make their appeals directly to Keir Starmer about the importance of being seen to stand by the party’s manifesto commitment of no new oil and gas licences.

https://www.thenational.scot/news/24909299.labour-mps-breaking-point-keir-starmer-north-sea-row

Continue ReadingLabour MPs at ‘breaking point’ with Keir Starmer over North Sea row

New oil and gas field consent was unlawful – judge

Spread the love

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3e1pw7npklo

A court has ruled that consent for two new Scottish oil and gas fields was granted unlawfully and their owners must seek fresh approval from the UK government before drilling can begin.

The written judgement on the Rosebank and Jackdaw fields came after a case brought by environmental campaigners, Uplift and Greenpeace, at the Court of Session in Edinburgh.

In his judgement, Lord Ericht said a more detailed assessment of the fields’ environmental impact was required, taking into account the effect on the climate of burning any fossil fuels extracted.

He said work on both fields could continue while the new information was gathered but no oil and gas could be extracted unless fresh approval was granted.

Shell’s Jackdaw gas field in the North Sea was originally approved by the previous UK Conservative government, and the industry regulator, in summer 2022.

Permission for the Rosebank oil development, 80 miles west of Shetland in the North Atlantic, was granted in autumn 2023.

In a 57-page judgement, Lord Ericht wrote that there was a public interest in having the decision “remade on a lawful basis” because of the effects of climate change – which he said outweighed the interests of the developers.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3e1pw7npklo

Orcas are pleased that Rosebank and Jackdaw oil fields are blocked.
Orcas are pleased that Rosebank and Jackdaw oil fields are blocked.
Continue ReadingNew oil and gas field consent was unlawful – judge

‘Pesticides buzz off’: More than 1.6 million people call for a ban on bee-killing pesticides

Spread the love

petition signed by more than 1.6 million people urging the government to enforce a total ban on bee-killing neonicotinoid pesticides has been handed in to the Department of Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs (Defra) by environmental campaigners [1].

The petition, which was coordinated by Greenpeace UK, has amassed a staggering 1,645,000 signatures from the British public and was delivered directly to Defra for the environment minister, Emma Hardy. It was delivered in the form of a bee hotel by campaigners dressed in ‘worker’ bee outfits carrying placards reading, ‘Pesticides Buzz Off’, ‘Protect Our Bees’ and ‘Bee Safe’. They were joined by Siân Berry, Green Party MP for Brighton Pavilion, who is a supporter of the campaign.

Separately, 15 leading climate and nature charities – including Pesticide Action Network, RSPB, Wildlife Trusts and Greenpeace – have written to the environment minister, calling for an end to the emergency authorisation of neonicotinoids on sugar beet crops [2].

In the letter they state: “By not allowing another emergency use of neonicotinoids, there will be more incentive for British Sugar and the government to fund research into alternatives, and to adopt nature-friendly farming approaches including Integrated Pest Management (IPM).”

Greenpeace UK’s campaigner, Anthony Lewis, said: “Using neonicotinoids to ‘protect’ crops is like setting fire to your house to protect it from burglars. Yes, it will destroy pests, but it will also kill bees and other vital pollinators we depend on for the food we’re trying to grow. It’s absurd.

“Bee populations have been decimated over recent years, with the use of neonicotinoids one of the drivers of this decline. As leading environmental charities and experts on nature protection, along with 1.6 million members of the public, we implore the government to implement a full and final ban on the use of all bee-killing pesticides once and for all.”

Bees are essential for our survival – pollinating much of our food and playing a critical role in sustaining ecosystems around the world. However, wild bee populations have fallen by a third, with the use of pesticides on farms a key contributor to their rapid decline. 

The use of neonicotinoids, which are particularly lethal to bees and other vital pollinators, was outlawed across Europe in 2018. However, despite the ban, the previous UK government approved the ‘emergency’ authorisation of these deadly chemicals for four years in a row, against the scientific advice of the government’s own Expert Committee on Pesticides.

image of black bees
Black bees

During its election campaign, the Labour Party made a commitment to end these exemptions for bee-killing pesticides and the government announced last month that it was drawing up plans to outlaw the use of some neonicotinoids. However, whatever the proposals being brought forward in future, another ‘emergency’ derogation could be allowed. A decision on whether to grant this emergency authorisation again this year is expected imminently.  

Continue Reading‘Pesticides buzz off’: More than 1.6 million people call for a ban on bee-killing pesticides