Tag: silencing

  • Online speech is powerful. That’s why Iran is silencing it.

    Online speech is powerful. That’s why Iran is silencing it.

    This essay was originally published in The Washington Examiner on Jan. 14, 2026.


    If the Islamic Republic of Iran has its way, the news you read and the social media you follow won’t show the truth of the shocking events happening right now within the country. A mass internet shutdown orchestrated by the government this month is threatening to silence expression from courageous Iranians, at least 12,000 of whom are now dead at the brutal hands of the state, who are fighting back against their oppressors.

    Protesters took to the streets in late December 2025, furious over out-of-control inflation, empty shelves, and the country’s dire economic situation. Protesters’ outrage is not just limited to the economy, with widespread sentiment among demonstrators against the regime and its conduct more broadly. Some of the rhetoric echoes that from the 2022 protests against the theocratic government after the death of Mahsa Amini, arrested and then killed by police for violating the country’s mandatory religious dress code for women.

    Though censorship on the part of the government has made an exact analysis of the breadth and turnout of the protests difficult, reports indicate these protests are massive — and spreading. Demonstrators took to the streets in every province, reportedly turning out in at least 185 cities.

    Earlier in the protests, authorities promised a $7 monthly payment to residents in an attempt to paper over rising dissent. That effort failed. And the authorities’ tone — and behavior — has since swiftly grown more hostile.

    Attorney General Mohammad Movahedi Azad warned that “charges against all rioters are the same,” regardless of whether they “are individuals who have helped rioters and terrorists in the destruction and damage of public security and property, or mercenaries who have taken up arms and caused fear and terror among citizens.” Judiciary chief Gholamhossein Mohseni-Ejei promised that the state’s response would be “decisive, maximum and without any legal leniency.” Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has likewise made clear that he will not tolerate these challenges to his power, calling the movement terroristic and “mercenaries for foreigners.”

    Punishment for detained protesters may ultimately include the death penalty. These are not idle threats. Iran shocked the global human rights community last year with its spike in executions. By September, authorities had already executed over 1,000 people in 2025.

    Authorities’ ultimate aim is to limit what their subjects can say — and what the rest of the world can know about it.

    And protesters are already paying the price. Authorities arrested at least 10,000 demonstrators, and thousands upon thousands have lost their lives. Doctors report a gruesome scene at hospitals from security forces “shooting from rooftops and terraces” rather than “on the street where people can see and run away.” In northern Iran, a morgue and hospital were so full that the “bodies were placed on top of one another.” And another horrific relic from the Mahsa Amini protests is resurfacing: hundreds of patients in Tehran “with pellets lodged in their eyes,” intentionally blinded by authorities.

    But Iran isn’t just using brute force to escalate the crackdown on its people. It’s also deploying a repressive tactic that’s become increasingly common: suppression of the tools government critics use to broadcast their message on a mass scale. Authorities’ ultimate aim is to limit what their subjects can say — and what the rest of the world can know about it.

    Starting on Jan. 8, the Iranian government enforced a suffocating internet blackout on the country, with a shocking 90% drop in traffic within 30 minutes after the ban began. These blackouts are a favorite tool of the regime; the government enacted blackouts in 2019 and 2022, too, to limit the spread of protesters’ words and also global attention on security forces’ violence against them. But experts warn this latest one represents a “new high-water mark” of online censorship in the country in its breadth and precision.

    Iranian authorities have maintained their own internet access and ability to post on platforms such as X and Telegram while cutting off their people’s ability to do so. This suggests that the blackout is “more sweeping, but also appears to be more fine-tuned, which potentially means Tehran will be able to sustain it for longer.” In some places, authorities have even managed to inhibit access to Elon Musk’s Starlink system. Residents are experiencing a total cutoff of cellphone reception.

    Authoritarians would not work this hard to silence you if they believed you were powerless. This is always the case with censorship.

    Iran isn’t alone in using this tactic against its people. Last year marked the most severe year yet for internet shutdowns, with researchers tracking nearly 300 disruptions and blackouts in dozens of nations. India, Myanmar, Pakistan, and Russia stood among the worst offenders. “As internet access becomes consistently weaponized, restricted, and precarious, we are seeing pervasive patterns of crushing censorship and an urgent need for greater accountability,” Access Now cautioned.

    If the early days of this year are any sign of what’s to come, 2026 may prove to be yet another repressive one. “This might be for the long haul,” Doug Madory, a researcher of internet blackouts, told the Guardian regarding Iran’s censorship. “I’ve been doing this for a while, and I think it’s going to be a big one.”

    The killings, censorship, and shutdowns sweeping Iran are a tragedy and a warning bell. But they also signal a small spark of hope to the world’s oppressed: Authoritarians would not work this hard to silence you if they believed you were powerless. This is always the case with censorship. The more aggressively an authoritarian attempts to crack down, the more it advertises its weakness and its fear.

    The responsibility now rests on the rest of the world to make sure we’re doing all we can to listen — and to fight for the future of a free internet. That future hangs in the balance, with new threats every day, from every sector.

    Authoritarian regimes such as Iran, Russia, and China all exert varying degrees of vast power upon the internet, whether in outright blocks or technologically complex systems that place immense firewalls between their people and the rest of the world.

    But even freer democracies are trying their hand at alarming and illiberal tech regulation, from Australia’s privacy-threatening and speech-chilling social media age-gating to the recent, and ripe for abuse, United Nations Cybercrime Treaty, and the United Kingdom’s byzantine Online Safety Act. Indeed, because the content itself depicts violence — which is simply the nature of what Iran’s people are suffering — the Online Safety Act may even hinder U.K. citizens, young and old alike, from accessing information on the internet about what’s happening in Tehran. Censorship does not make the British safer. It just makes them ill-informed.

    Here in the United States, we are not immune from these threats either, from jawboning to unconstitutional state and federal legislation, which all too often receive support from across the political aisle. That has to change.

    As we advocate a freer future for Iran’s protesters, we also need to protect on a global scale the tools they need to share their story with the rest of the world.

    The future of freedom depends on the internet. We must start acting like it.

    Source link

  • Shut your app: How Uncle Sam jawboned Big Tech into silencing Americans

    Shut your app: How Uncle Sam jawboned Big Tech into silencing Americans

    This prepared statement was delivered before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on Oct. 29, 2025.


    Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Cantwell, and honorable members of the Committee,

    Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Will Creeley, and I am the legal director of FIRE — the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a nonpartisan nonprofit dedicated to defending the rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought, the essential qualities of liberty.

    I’ve spent nearly 20 years defending the First Amendment rights of speakers from every point on the ideological spectrum. At FIRE, we have one rule: If speech is protected, we’ll defend it.

    Typically, the censorship we fight is straightforward: The government punishes a speaker for saying things the government doesn’t like. That’s a classic First Amendment violation, a fastball down the middle. Unfortunately, that kind of textbook censorship isn’t the only way government actors silence disfavored or dissenting speech.

    FIRE Legal Director Will Creeley testifies before the Senate Commerce Committee on Oct. 29, 2025.

    Far too often, government officials from both sides of the partisan divide engage in “jawboning” — that is, they abuse the actual or perceived power of their office to threaten, bully, or coerce others into censoring speech. This indirect censorship violates the First Amendment just as surely as direct suppression.

    What is jawboning? And does it violate the First Amendment?

    Indirect government censorship is still government censorship — and it must be stopped.


    Read More

    This isn’t new law. The First Amendment’s prohibition against coerced censorship dates back decades, to the Supreme Court’s 1963 ruling in Bantam Books v. Sullivan. In that case, the Court confronted a Rhode Island state commission that sent threatening letters, “phrased virtually as orders,” to booksellers distributing “objectionable” titles — with follow-up visits from police, to ensure the message had been received.

    The Court held the commission’s “operation was in fact a scheme of state censorship effectuated by extra-legal sanctions; they acted as an agency not to advise but to suppress.” And in the decades since, courts have consistently heeded Bantam Books’ call to “look through forms to the substance” of censorship, and to remain vigilant against both formal and informal schemes to silence speech.

    But government officials regularly abuse their power to silence others, so the lesson of Bantam Books bears repeating. And in deciding National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo last year, the Supreme Court unanimously and emphatically reaffirmed it.

    In Vullo, New York State officials punished the NRA for its views on gun rights by threatening regulatory enforcement against insurance companies that did business with the group and offering leniency to those who stopped. New York’s backdoor censorship was successful — and unlawful.

    This regulatory carrot-and-stick approach was designed to chill speech, and the Court reiterated that “a government official cannot do indirectly what she is barred from doing directly: A government official cannot coerce a private party to punish or suppress disfavored speech on her behalf.”

    A government official cannot do indirectly what she is barred from doing directly.

    To be sure, the government may speak for itself, and the public has an interest in hearing from it. But it may not wield that power to censor. As Judge Richard Posner put it: The government is “entitled to what it wants to say — but only within limits.” Under no circumstances may our public servants “employ threats to squelch the free speech of private citizens.”

    So the law is clear: Government actors cannot silence a speaker by threatening “we can do this the easy way or we can do this the hard way,” as the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission did last month. Nevertheless, recent examples of jawboning abound: against private broadcasters, private universities, private social media platforms, and more. The First Amendment does not abide mob tactics.

    Despite the clarity of the law, fighting back against jawboning is difficult. Targeted speakers can’t sue federal officials for monetary damages for First Amendment violations, removing a powerful deterrent. And as a practical matter, informal censorship is often invisible to those silenced.

    That’s particularly true in the context of social media platforms, as demonstrated by another recent Supreme Court case, Murthy v. Missouri.

    Jawboning betrays our national commitment to freedom of expression.

    Murthy involved coercive demands by Biden administration officials to social media platforms about posts related to Covid-19, vaccines, elections, and other subjects, resulting in the suppression of speech the administration opposed. But the Court held the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue, because the causal link between their deleted posts and the administration’s pressure wasn’t sufficiently clear.

    Murthy illustrates a severe information disparity: Users whose speech is suppressed have no way to know if government actors put their thumb on the scale. Only the government and the platforms have that knowledge, and usually neither want to share it. 

    That’s why FIRE authored model legislation that would require the government to disclose communications between federal agencies and social media companies regarding content published on its platform, with limited exceptions. But transparency is not enough. Federal officials must be meaningfully deterred from jawboning, and held accountable when they do.

    Jawboning betrays our national commitment to freedom of expression. Congress should take action to stop it.

    Thank you for your time. I welcome your questions.

    View FIRE’s full testimony with briefs before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on October 29, 2025

    Source link

  • The silencing of America’s voice leaves journalists abandoned

    The silencing of America’s voice leaves journalists abandoned

    On 28 March, several journalists in South Asia opened their inboxes and found messages that changed their lives. Reporting assignments were cancelled. Email access revoked. For many, it marked the end of years of work with Voice of America — without explanation, without notice.

    Nazir Ahmad is a journalist. For 11 years, Ahmad worked for Voice of America as a multimedia journalist. He documented protests, crackdowns and mass detentions. That morning, his email account was suspended. His press card was no longer valid.

    “It ended without warning,” he said. “No notice, no call. Just a message that my services were no longer needed. I had been filing reports even a week before this.”

    Nazir Ahmad is not his real name. We changed it for this article to protect his identity. And we offered anonymity to all the journalists we interviewed for this story because their reporting for Voice of America has put them in danger. 

    Ahmad is one of several South Asian journalists who lost their jobs after the Trump administration signed an executive order to downsize multiple U.S. government agencies, including the U.S. Agency for Global Media, which oversees Voice of America.

    On 22 April, a federal district judge in Washington, D.C. ruled that the administration illegally required Voice of America to cease operations and ordered it be temporarily restored until the lawsuits challenging the closure have run their course. How this will affect Ahmad and the other reporters who were dismissed remains to be seen. 

    Shutting down a news network

    The Trump Administration’s decision to end Voice of America affected journalists across Asia who have been covering sensitive political developments for years.

    “I covered the Delhi riots, Punjab farmers’ protests, and the elections,” said another Voice of America journalist. “These were not easy stories. I often worked without backup and sometimes without formal protection. Now, I’m being told to stop working.”

    Trump’s executive order resulted in mass administrative leave across Voice of America’s global network. Michael Abramowitz, Voice of America’s director, confirmed that nearly all 1,300 journalists and staff were placed on leave.

    The White House said the order was intended to reduce government spending and eliminate what it called “radical propaganda.” It accused outlets like Voice of America of political bias, despite decades of bipartisan support for the agency.

    For many South Asian journalists, the move came at a personal and professional cost. Several freelancers and stringers in India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka had worked with Voice of America for over a decade. 

    Telling important stories to the world

    Besides reporting on protests, these reporters covered elections, environmental disasters and rights violations in hard-to-reach areas.

    “I reported from Punjab’s border villages during the height of the farmers’ protests,” said yet another journalist who worked with Voice of America since 2014. “I was there when the police fired tear gas. I was there when elderly protesters braved the winter cold. And now I’m unemployed.”

    These journalists say they received no formal termination letters, only a message from editors citing administrative leave and funding suspensions. They have not been told when or if their jobs will resume.

    “There was a clear line in the message: stop all reporting,” said a Voice of America contributor from New Delhi. “I depend on this income to support my family. I’ve been sending stories every week for eight years.”

    Voice of America was established in 1942 during World War II to counter Nazi propaganda. It has since expanded to reach 360 million people weekly in nearly 50 languages. In South Asia, it provided a platform for independent voices, especially in regions where domestic media faced political pressure or censorship.

    Press coverage where the press is muzzled

    Experts say the funding freeze, if ultimately allowed by the courts, could silence important coverage from conflict zones. In regions like Kashmir, where local journalists already face surveillance and restrictions, international media partnerships like Voice of America provided both visibility and a layer of protection.

    “Working with VOA allowed us to tell local stories without fear of censorship,” says a journalist based in Srinagar. “Now that channel is gone.”

    The impact also extends beyond journalists. Translators, video editors and fixers who worked with Voice of America in the region say their contracts have been halted.

    “I’ve been working as a video editor for their South Asia bureau for six years,” said a technician based in Lahore, Pakistan. “We’ve stopped getting assignments. I haven’t been paid for last month’s work.”

    Some journalists say they are now exploring alternate work, but few opportunities exist for those with years of specialized international reporting experience.

    “I’m being told to apply to local newspapers, but they don’t have the budget or the editorial independence,” said a journalist from Kathmandu. “It feels like I’m starting over after 12 years.”

    Stories the domestic press hesitates to cover

    The Executive Order also affected coverage of religious freedom, caste violence and press crackdowns in India. Journalists who regularly filed in-depth features say important stories are now going untold.

    “I was working on a long story about attacks on Christian communities,” said a reporter based in Tamil Nadu. “It’s not something mainstream outlets want to cover. Voice of America gave me space to explore that. Now it’s shelved.”

    The global press watchdog Reporters Without Borders has described the shutdown as a serious setback for journalism, warning that it could encourage political interference in media operations across the world.

    Stephen Capus, head of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, which also lost funding, said the move would leave millions without access to independent reporting.

    In South Asia, journalists say this is about more than losing a paycheck. For them, it’s the breakdown of a reporting network that allowed them to cover sensitive stories in challenging environments.

    “We weren’t just sending news reports,” says a journalist who covered the Indian government’s 2019 decision to revoke Kashmir’s autonomy. “We were capturing what was happening when few others could. And now someone in Washington has pulled the plug.”

    With no clarity on whether the shutdown is permanent, most contributors are in limbo. Some are looking for freelance work. Others are applying for short-term grants. But many say the abrupt stop has left them disoriented.

    “I always thought if I stopped reporting, it would be because of risks here,” one journalist said. “I didn’t expect to be cut off by a government halfway across the world.”


    Questions to consider:

    • What is the Voice of America?

    • Why has the U.S. government long funded foreign journalists outside the United States?

    • Do you think governments should pay journalists to cover events and other stories? Why?


    Source link

  • The silencing of voices through the banning of books

    The silencing of voices through the banning of books

    When I was in fifth grade in northern Kentucky, I walked into my school library, excited to check out my favorite book — Drama by Raina Telgemeier — only to find it missing. My librarian told me it had been removed because someone had complained it wasn’t appropriate for our age group.

    The shelves looked emptier without it and I remember the sting of frustration in my chest as I asked question after question, my voice growing unsteady. That book was my only access to a world I love and now it was gone. 

    At the time, I didn’t understand why it had disappeared. Now, I realize that moment was part of a much larger battle playing out across the country.

    A surge in book bans across the U.S. is forcing educators and librarians into a heated debate over censorship and intellectual freedom, as restrictions on books about race, gender and LGBTQ+ topics increase.

    “Books don’t hurt people. People hurt people,” said Joyce McIntosh, assistant program director for the Freedom to Read Foundation.

    Bans across the nation

    As book bans and censorship debates arise across the country, independent K-12 schools, like the Tatnall School in Wilmington, Delaware where I go to school, must balance open access to information with concerns over age-appropriate content — a challenge that mirrors broader societal tensions over education and free expression.

    Over the past few years, book challenges have significantly increased, with reports from the American Library Association showing a record-breaking number of book bans in 2023, documenting 1,247 demands to censor library books and resources.

    While these debates are heating up in the U.S., similar efforts to restrict access to information are occurring across the globe, from government crackdowns in China to classroom censorship in Brazil. McIntosh said these bans disproportionately target books focused on BIPOC and LGBTQ communities, limiting students’ access to diverse perspectives. 

    “Bans often target books focused on [black, indigenous and people of color]  and LGBTQ communities, preventing students from seeing themselves represented,” McIntosh said. 

    Groups advocating for more restrictions counter that certain topics seen in school books promote inappropriate themes or political agendas. On the other hand, organizations like the Freedom to Read Foundation work to educate library workers and community members about the importance of intellectual freedom. 

    Local schools navigate the debate

    For educators, the tension between intellectual freedom and parental concerns seems like a tightrope act. While public schools in the United States must follow government and state regulations, independent schools have more flexibility in curating their libraries and media centers. That flexibility comes with its own challenges and doesn’t provide much leeway.

    Instead, it forces school administrations to set their own guidelines, often navigating difficult conversations with parents, teachers, and students to figure out what’s best for their school environment. 

    Ensign Simmons, the director of innovation and technology and library coordinator at the Tatnall School, emphasized the school’s approach to book selection. While the library strives to provide students with diverse perspectives in education, it also considers community concerns as well as the age-appropriateness of the content, Simmons said. 

    Simmons said that while Tatnall is not a public institution, the school still has a responsibility to prepare students to think critically and be open-minded when they enter the world.

    Tatnall hasn’t faced formal book bans, but the school remains aware of the growing national trends. Instead of outright censorship, Simmons said that the school encourages dialogue between students, parents and educators. Maintaining this balance means that while some books may contain more mature content, the overall goal is to promote discussion among students of different perspectives rather than restrictions.

     “Even if you disagree with something, that doesn’t mean we should take it off the shelves,” Simmons said. “We should keep them out there because that does spark a conversation and that conversation is what’s important at the end of the day.”

    The role of parents play

    While anti-ban activists argue that restricting and banning books violates an individual’s access to intellectual freedom, pro-ban supporters see it as a step taken that is necessary to protect children and youth from inappropriate and controversial material.

    Moms for Liberty, a conservative advocacy group, has led efforts to remove books like The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison from certain school districts and libraries, arguing that educators should not have the final say in what the students read.  

    McIntosh said that many schools already have policies allowing parents to opt their child out of specific reading materials and select an alternative that aligns with the curriculum. However, when one parent’s choice limits access for all students, it crosses into censorship, she said. Parents have the right to choose that for their child, however, it starts becoming more like censorship when they decide they don’t want anyone reading the book, making a decision for others based on their own beliefs. 

    Censorship is a global issue, not confined to the United States. In China, writers who challenge the government’s narrative have been imprisoned. In Tanzania, the government banned children’s books on sex education, citing violations of cultural norms, while in Brazil, attempts have been made to remove books addressing race and gender from classrooms. This is similar to the problem in the United States.

    These efforts to restrict access to information emphasize the broader, international pattern of controlling stories, especially those of marginalized communities. Whether driven by political power, cultural conservatism or fear of open dialogue, these global examples underscore the dangers of erasing perspectives that are vital for understanding diverse human experiences, just as we are witnessing in the U.S.

    What the future holds

    As the debate over book bans intensifies, many wonder what the future for school libraries will look like. In the future, instead of banning books outright, restrictions could shift toward regulation of digital content, as our world’s use of technology grows and as more controversial material becomes accessible online.

    Schools, like Tatnall, might continue to shift and shape their policies, cultivating discussions among the youth rather than enforcing strict bans and censoring intellectual content.

    Years ago, I didn’t understand why my favorite book was taken away. Now, I see that removing a single book is never just about a book — it’s about whose voices get heard and whose stories remain untold. 

    “One of the most dangerous aspects of book bans is that they often target marginalized voices,” McIntosh said. “When we remove these stories, we’re not just censoring books. We’re erasing experiences and perspectives that are crucial for understanding the world around us.”

    The ongoing debate over book bans isn’t only about stories; it’s about who gets to decide what topics are worth exploring. And that struggle isn’t limited to the United States. Across continents, governments and school systems are making similar decisions about which perspectives are allowed to exist and which are erased.

    As long as books continue to disappear from shelves, that debate will continue shaping free expression and education for years to come.


    Questions to consider:

    • Why would some groups want to ban whole classrooms from access to particular books?

    • Why are books about people of color or are about themes of gender identity often the target of bans?

    • Do you think some books should be kept from children? Which ones and why?


     

    Source link