Civil Liberties, Civil Rights, Freedom Of Speech, Human Rights, Supreme Court
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
James Goodale: Fighting for the Press and Freedom of Speech
Donald Trump has wasted no time in his second term attacking free speech and freedom of the press. He arrested Mahmoud Khalil, a permanent US resident with a green card and a student visa, and is trying to deport him (until restrained by a federal judge) because Khalil led pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia University. He has threatened to deport other students for their pro-Palestinian protests. Trump banned the Associated Press from White House press briefings and Air Force One for using the term “Gulf of Mexico” instead of “Gulf of America.”
He also banned Reuters News Service and Huffington Post from the press pool. He has issued Executive Orders which federal agencies have cited as authority to ban forbidden words from government websites such as the words Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. He’s threaten to pull federal funding from over 50 universities for teaching aspects of American history such as slavery and racism, which he labels “divisive.” He has encouraged congressional investigations against Democrats who served on the January 6 Committee.
He has promoted a definition of “antisemitism” which would punish political criticism of Israel. And he has filed lawsuits seeking hundreds of million of dollars in damages against ABC, CBS, Media Matters for America, and newspapers based on how they have reported on him, his candidacy, and his actions as President.
Guest – James Goodale is the former vice president and general counsel for The New York Times and, later, the Times’ vice chairman. He is the author of Fighting for the Press: The Inside Story of the Pentagon Papers and Other Battles. Goodale represented The New York Times in four of its United States Supreme Court cases, including Branzburg v. Hayes, in which the Times intervened on behalf of its reporter Earl Caldwell. The other cases were New York Times v. Sullivan, New York Times Co. v. United States (the Pentagon Papers case), and New York Times Co. v. Tasini. He has been called “the father of the reporter’s privilege” in the Hastings Law Journal because of his interpretation of the Branzburg case.
—-
Pushing The Limit Of Presidential Power
Since being sworn in for his second term on January 20, 2025, Donald Trump has signed (with a big black marker) almost 90 Executive Orders or EOs, stretching the limits of Presidential power. In response, over 100 lawsuits have been filed challenging the most egregious and questionable EOs. Some of the most sweeping orders seek to totally dismantle over 70 years of laws, policies, and programs promoting Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility. These EOs were immediately challenged in court. Meanwhile, some companies have surrendered to Trump and terminated their Diversity programs, while civil rights groups are fighting back.
Stephen’s recent article – First They Came For Mahmoud Khalil
Guest – Stephen Rohde is a writer, lecturer and political activist. For almost 50 years, he practiced civil rights, civil liberties, and intellectual property law and has won significant First Amendment victories in state and federal appellate courts. He is a past chair of the ACLU Foundation of Southern California and past National Chair of Bend the Arc, a Jewish Partnership for Justice. He is a founder and current chair of Interfaith Communities United for Justice and Peace; member of the Board of Directors of Death Penalty Focus, and a member of the Black Jewish Justice Alliance. He is the Special Advisor on Free Speech and the First Amendment for the Muslim Public Affairs Council.
Mr. Rohde is the author of the books American Words of Freedom: The Words That Define Our Nation and Freedom of Assembly and numerous articles and book reviews on civil liberties and constitutional history for the Los Angeles Review of Books, American Prospect, LA Times, Ms. Magazine, Los Angeles Lawyer, LA Progressive, Truthdig and other publications.
———————————-
Civil Liberties, Civil Rights, Criminalizing Dissent, Freedom Of Speech, Gaza, genocide, Human Rights, War Resister
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Federal Court Challenges to Trump Administration Arguments
The number of active lawsuits in federal courts challenging Trump administration arguments has now topped 100. In 21 of those cases, judges have already issued temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctions, effectively stopping, at least for now, parts of Trump’s agenda.
For example, as reported in the New York Times this past Sunday, trial court judges have blocked for now Trump’s mass firings of civil servants, Musk’s access to sensitive federal agency data, the relocation of transgendered women inmates to men’s prisons, the pursuit of immigrants inside houses of worship, and the freezing of up to $3 trillion of federal funding to the states. And in a very important case, a federal judge entered a final judgment reinstating the head of the federal watchdog agency. And just yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled against the Trump Administration halting the sending out of those billions of foreign aid dollars.
But it must be pointed out that in a number of preliminary victories against Trump’s actions, the government, though losing the first round in the case, have nevertheless stalled in obeying the court’s orders. And Trump, himself, posted the absolutist notion that, “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law.”
Five of the judges who have ruled against Trump were appointed by Republican presidents, one by Trump himself. As a result of Trump’s losing record in court cases so far, there is now talk on the right of seeking to impeach judges who rule against the Trump Administration. And the number of death threats judges are experiencing from the public have gone up alarmingly, as well.
Guest – Stephen Rohde is a civil rights activist, author, and constitutional scholar. He practiced civil rights law for almost 50 years. He currently serves as chair of the Interfaith Communities United for Justice and Peace (aka ICUJP), which was formed in the wake of 9/11 for the purpose of organizing faith-based communities to call for an end to war and violence. He is also a past President of the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, and past Chair of Death Penalty Focus, and Bend the Arc: A Jewish Partnership for Justice. Despite that long list of affiliations, today he’s not speaking on behalf of any of those organizations.
—-
Free Speech Protections Threatened Under Trump Administration
On March 4, 2025, President Donald Trump threatened to cut federal funding to colleges that permit what he calls “illegal protests.” This statement on social media has sparked a wave of reactions from civil rights groups as a direct attack on fundamental freedoms such as speech and assembly.
In his post, Trump echoed ideas from previous executive orders, including his 2019 order and one issued in January, which specifically targeted pro-Palestinian student protests on college campuses, calling them antisemitic. But Trump’s latest comments go further, asserting that any protest deemed illegal would lead to harsh consequences, including the imprisonment of agitators and expulsion or arrest of American students. The details, however, remain unclear, particularly around how the government would define “illegal protests” or the enforcement of such measures.
Trump’s latest threat has reignited concerns about the balance between freedom of speech and government intervention on college campuses. It also raises important questions about the rights of students, faculty, and protesters in the context of broader political and social movements.
Guest – Attorney Mara Verheyden-Hilliard from the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund and the Center for Protest Law and Litigation in Washington, DC. Mara is one of the nation’s leading litigators defending protesters and winning numerous reforms in police practices at mass assemblies and demonstrations.
———————–
Academic Freedom, Censorship, Freedom Of Speech, Gaza, genocide, Human Rights, Targeting Muslims
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
The First Amendment And TikTok
On January 17, for the first time in modern American history, a unanimous US Supreme Court upheld a sweeping prior restraint on free speech imposed by Congress banning over 170 million users in the United States from having access to the popular social media platform TikTok that the Court itself admitted “allows users to create, publish, view, share, and interact with short videos overlaid with audio and text.” In 2023 alone, U. S. TikTok users uploaded more than 5.5 billion videos, which were in turn viewed more than 13 trillion times around the world. The avoid the ban, the law requires TikTok’s parent company, the China-based ByteDance, to divest its ownership.
From January 18 to 19, the ban was in effect for about 12 hours until Donald Trump tweeted that as President he would grant a stay of execution, pending a potential sale of TikTok. It was only 12 hours some may say, but it is estimated that during that time the ban blocked 6,750,000 videos that would have been viewed over 178,000,000 times worldwide. The ban is easily the most extensive act of censorship in human history.
Shortly after he was sworn in, Trump signed an Executive Order purporting to suspend the ban for 75 days. Serious questions have been raised whether Trump’s order is legal and enforceable. And despite his order, Apple and Google have still not reinstated TikTok at their stores preventing new subscribers from accessing TikTok.
Meanwhile, the First Amendment rights of 170 million TikTok users hang in the balance.
Guest – Ramya Krishnan is a senior staff attorney at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University and a lecturer in law at Columbia Law School. Her litigation focuses on issues related to government transparency, protest, privacy, and social media. Ramya co-authored the Knight Institute’s amicus brief in TikTok. v. Garland, one of the lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the TikTok ban which resulted in the Supreme Court’s decision. Read Amicus Brief
—-
Federal Court Rejects Attempt To Remove Ethnic Studies Curriculum
As Israel’s war in Gaza and the West Bank rages on, the free speech battles here in the United States continue with Congress, state legislatures and college administrators trying to silence pro-Palestinian protests by conflating criticism of Israel with the odious epithet of “antisemitism.” Pro-Palestinian groups are being banned, students are being disciplined, and faculty members are being suspended and fired.
But last November, there was some hopeful news when a federal court rejected attempts by Jewish parents and teachers to remove an ethnic studies curriculum from the Los Angeles Unified School District that they had labelled “antisemitic” and “anti-Zionist.”
On November 30, 2024, in a 49-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Fernando M. Olguin wrote that a system of education “which discovers truth out of a multitude of tongues” must allow teachers and their students “to explore difficult and conflicting ideas.” He added that “we must be careful not to curb intellectual freedom by imposing dogmatic restrictions that chill teachers from adopting the pedagogical methods they believe are most effective,”
The ruling represents a welcome rebuke to the efforts of Republican state legislators and conservative parent groups to try to restrict the teaching of comprehensive American history in public schools, to ban books that examine that history as well as racism, sexism, and LGBTQ issues, and to eliminate programs that seek to ensure diversity, equity, and inclusion in American education.
In 2022, a group calling itself “Concerned Jewish Parents and Teachers of Los Angeles,” comprised of what the lawsuit calls Jewish, Zionist teachers and parents of students sued the Los Angeles Unified School District; United Teachers of Los Angeles; its president Cecily Myart-Cruz; the Liberated Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum Consortium; Theresa Montaño, the Consortium’s secretary; and Guadalupe Carrasco, its co-founder.
To discuss the important free speech and academic freedom issues involved in this case, we’ve invited the lawyer who represented the ethnic studies curriculum, Ms Montano and Ms Carrasco.
Guest – Mark Kleiman is a former activist and organizer and a long-time civil rights and human rights attorney. With extensive experience in whistleblower protection, he has brought cases that exposed massive fraud against public programs and has forced drug companies, nursing home chains, and defense contractors to repay hundreds of millions of dollars. Since 2019 he has devoted thousands of hours to defending activists, scholars, and students who have been attacked for their defense of Palestinian human rights.
————————-
Freedom Of Speech, Gaza, Human Rights, Targeting Muslims, U.S. Militarism, Violations of U.S. and International Law, War Resister
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Journalists Under Fire In Israel-Gaza Conflict
Today we turn to the status of press freedom in Israel. Since the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023, and during the ensuing war in Gaza ever since, which is now moving into the West Bank, the pressure on journalists who are trying to cover what’s been happening there is increasing… and more dangerous.
According to the New York-based Committee To Protect Journalists, the Israel-Gaza war has claimed the lives of more journalists over the course of a year than in any other conflict the organization has documented. They estimate 128 journalists killed and 69 imprisoned.
The foreign and Israeli journalists who are bold enough to enter Gaza to report on what’s happening can only do so if they are accompanied by Israeli forces… and under strict surveillance. And the Israeli military has no qualms about shutting down news outlets like Al Jazeera – even its bureau in Ramallah, in the West Bank, which is an area supposedly under Palestinian control.
And just last week, Israeli Occupational Forces arrested a US citizen, journalist Jeremy Loffredo, charging him with endangering national security for his reporting on Iranian strikes. Reporters Without Borders condemns what it calls Israel’s climate of intimidation, and has called on the Israeli authorities to stop obstructing the work of journalists covering the war.
Guest – Kevin Gosztola is a journalist and editor of The Dissenter Newsletter, which regularly covers whistleblowing, press freedom, and government secrecy. He is the author of Guilty of Journalism: The Political Case Against Julian Assange and known for his work reporting on the extradition proceedings against Assange and the court-martial against Chelsea Manning. Both were prosecuted and convicted under the Espionage Act.
—-
Back From The Brink 2024
One issue from the Cold War topic stills looms large today: the growing threat of nuclear war. While many hoped the end of the Cold War would signal a retreat from the nuclear arms race, recent developments suggest otherwise. Tensions between amid U.S., Russia, and China have escalated, and key nuclear arms control treaties, such as the INF Treaty have eroded, with the future of the New START agreement uncertain.
The war in Ukraine, punctuated by Russia’s nuclear saber-rattling, has revived fears of potential nuclear escalation. At the same time, huge sums are being funneled into expanding and modernizing nuclear arsenals. In several decades, it is estimated that the total cost of modernizing and maintaining the U.S. nuclear arsenal amounts to approximately $1.7 trillion. Emerging technologies, like hypersonic missiles and Artificial Intelligence in military decision-making, further complicate the stability of nuclear deterrence, raising new questions about global security.
Guest – Dr. Ira Helfand is a member of the International Steering Group of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, or ICAN, which was awarded the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize. Dr. Helfand is also the immediate past president of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, or IPPNW, a founding partner of ICAN and itself the recipient of the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize. He co-founded and served as past president of Physicians for Social Responsibility, the US affiliate of IPPNW. Dr. Helfand is also co-founder of the Back from the Brink campaign, the key vehicle for people in the U.S. who want to get involved in this issue.
—————————
CIA Sponsored Terror, Civil Liberties, Civil Rights, Criminalizing Dissent, Extraordinary Rendition, Freedom Of Speech, Human Rights, Iraq War, Prosecution of the Bush Administration, Targeting Muslims, Torture, Violations of U.S. and International Law, War Resister, Whistleblowers
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
September 11, 2001: Lessons Learned And Overlooked
It has been 23 years ago this week since the attacks on September 11, 2001 in New York City, the Pentagon, and Shanksville, PA, killing nearly 3,000 people and injuring more than 6,000. On that day, the United States had a choice: The George W Bush administration could have treated the attacks as a violation of US and international law, launched a criminal investigation, and brought the perpetrators to justice in accordance with the rule of law. Instead, President Bush waged endless wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, pushed through Congress the USA Patriot Act, opened the notorious detention center at Guantanamo Bay which remain to this day, rounded up Muslims and South Asians for indefinite detention, initiated a wave of civil liberties and human rights violations, and committed wholesale torture against detainees and others.
To assess the legacy of 9/11 and the lessons learned and the lessons overlooked, we’ve invited someone who was at the center of Bush’s War on Terror. John Kiriakou is a journalist, former CIA counterterrorism officer, former senior investigator for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and former counterterrorism consultant for ABC News.
In 2007, Kiriakou blew the whistle on the CIA’s torture program, telling ABC News that the CIA tortured prisoners, that torture was official U.S. government policy, and that the policy had been approved by President George W. Bush. He knew what he was talking about. In 2002, he was responsible for the capture in Pakistan of Abu Zubaydah, then believed to be the third-ranking official in al-Qaeda.
He became the sixth whistleblower indicted by the Obama administration under the Espionage Act of 1917 — a law designed to punish spies. He served 23 months in prison as a result of his revelations.
In 2012, the Ralph Nader family honored Kiriakou with the Joe A. Callaway Award for Civic Courage, an award given to individuals who “advance truth and justice despite the personal risk it creates.” He won the PEN Center USA’s prestigious First Amendment Award in 2015, the first Blueprint International Whistleblowing Prize for Bravery and Integrity in the Public Interest in 2016, and also in 2016 the Sam Adams Award for Integrity in Intelligence, given by retired CIA, FBI, and NSA officers.
Guest – John Kiriakou is the author of eight books, including The Reluctant Spy: My Secret Life in the CIA’s War on Terror; and The CIA Insider’s Guide to the Iran Crisis. I met John in 2017 and we collaborated on companion reviews or the Los Angeles Review of Books of the book with the euphemisitic title Enhanced Interrogation written by James E. Mitchell and Bill Harlow, the architects of the American torture system.
—-
COP 29 Held In Azerbaijan Dictatorship
This year the UN Climate Conference — known as COP29 — will be hosted by the petrol-dictatorship of Azerbaijan. As COP29 delegates prepare to attend talks in Baku, the international community has a chance to shine a spotlight on Azerbaijan’s abysmal human rights record, notably the blockade and ethnic cleansing of Nagorno-Karabakh’s (Artsakh’s) Armenian population last year, and amid the government’s escalating domestic crackdown on freedom of speech, assembly and the press.
Ironically, Azerbaijan’s dictator Ilham Aliyev allocated $1 million to the UN Human Settlements Program, one day before a UN mission visited the Artsakh region who reported ‘no irregularities’ despite the territory being depopulated by Azerbaijan’s military invasion.
As one of the world’s top environmental and fossil fuel polluters, during its invasion of Nagorno-Karabakh, Azerbaijan used the outlawed, lethal and environmentally hazardous White Phosphorus as a chemical weapon on the native Armenian population and their highly forested environment. In that fatal siege, which liquidated all native Armenians, the Azeri government-sponsored blockaders posed as climate activists, while punishing true protesters of lethal pollution, in Azerbaijan, especially journalists and activists in advance of COP29.
Guest – Karnig Kerkonian, one of 23 legal advisors representing the Republic of Armenia at the ICJ (International Court of Justice) in 2021. Karnig’s team presented their case against Azerbaijan, calling on the Tribunal to take provisional measures “as a matter of extreme urgency” to “protect and preserve Armenia’s rights and the rights of Armenians from further harm.” Azerbaijan has ignored the ICJ’s November 2023 ruling to “take all necessary measures to prevent and punish acts of vandalism and desecration affecting Armenian cultural heritage, including but not limited to churches and other places of worship, monuments, landmarks, cemeteries and artifacts.” Attorney Kerkonian has also represented the Armenian community of Old Jerusalem in recent Israeli settler incursions upon the Armenian Quarter.
————————
Censorship, Civil Liberties, Civil Rights, Freedom Of Speech, Human Rights
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Book Banning, Censorship And Freedom Of Speech
Americans have a love-hate relationship with freedom of speech: They love to protect their own free speech and they hate to protect the free speech of those they disagree with. The First Amendment to the US Constitution was intended to protect freedom of speech and freedom of the press, yet throughout American history, governments at all levels have censored speech and tried to muzzle the press.
The anti-censorship group PEN America, in a survey of the 2022-23 school year, found that “freedom to read is under assault in the United States — particularly in public schools — curtailing students’ freedom to explore words, ideas, and books.” Authors whose books are targeted are most frequently female, people of color, and/or LGBTQ+ individuals.
According to the American Library Association, the number of titles targeted for censorship surged 65 percent in 2023 compared to 2022, reaching the highest levels it has ever documented. According to Deborah Caldwell-Stone, director of ALA’s Office for Intellectual Freedom, “Each demand to ban a book is a demand to deny each person’s constitutionally protected right to choose and read books that raise important issues and lift up the voices of those who are often silenced.”
Guest – Robert Corn-Revere is Chief Counsel for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, known as “FIRE.” He has practiced First Amendment law for 40 years. From 1989 to 1994, Corn-Revere served as legal advisor and later chief counsel to the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission.
Corn-Revere is a prominent writer, thinker, and advocate on free expression issues and is regularly listed as a leading First Amendment and media lawyer by various national publications. He co-authored the three-volume treatise, “Modern Communication Law.” In 2021, Cambridge University Press published his book, “The Mind of the Censor and the Eye of the Beholder: The First Amendment and the Censor’s Dilemma,” which explores how free expression became a part of America’s identity. I reviewed “The Mind of the Censor” for Los Angeles Review of Books and called it an “entertaining, enlightening, and timely book.”
Another form of censorship – Report: Record Number of Journalists Killed in Gaza by Stephen Rohde
—-
Disappeared: Criminalizing The Unhoused
Late this June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that cities can punish people for sleeping in public places. In a 6-3 decision along ideological lines, the Court overturned lower court rulings that held it is cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to penalize people for sleeping outside if they had nowhere else to go. This ruling now allows localities the right to dismantle encampments of tents and cardboard coverings, even when there is no locally available housing or shelter.
Human Rights Watch has condemned this ruling and released a comprehensive report titled, You Have to Move! The Cruel and Ineffective Criminalization of Unhoused People in Los Angeles. The report documents the experiences of persons living on the streets, in vehicles, in temporary shelters, and in parks as they struggle to survive. In Los Angeles alone, tens-of-thousands of people are living in the streets, with death rates among the unhoused population reaching alarming levels. Governor Gavin Newsom, a supporter of the Court’s decision, has urged all local jurisdictions in California to destroy unhoused encampments. Several cities in the state have already begun doing so.
Western Regional Advocacy Project
The lack of housing is a national crisis, and this ruling raises the risk of increased use of such punitive tactics not only in Los Angeles but across the entire country.
Guest – John Raphling, Senior Researcher in the U.S. Program of Human Rights Watch and author of the report we’ve mentioned. Before joining Human Rights Watch, John spent years as a Deputy Public Defender in Los Angeles. He has represented political and community activists targeted for their activism, and homeless people prosecuted for crimes related to their status. John is also a member of the National Lawyers Guild.
———————————–
