August, 01 2018, 12:00am EDT
Mass Censorship Is Not the Answer. Fight for the Future Condemns Facebook Removal of Legitimate Protest Page
WASHINGTON
Facebook announced with much fanfare yesterday that the company had scrubbed 32 pages and accounts that they suspected "were involved in coordinated inauthentic behavior." But as it turns out, an event sponsored by one of the pages they deleted was for a perfectly legitimate and permitted protest being organized by local activists in Washington, DC. According to the organizers, the event page was deleted because one one of the co-hosts was a page that Facebook suspected of being "inauthentic."
The event had attracted thousands of interested Internet users, and has now been effectively squashed by Facebook's purge, just weeks before the protest, giving organizers little time to regain momentum.
"Arbitrary mass censorship is not the solution for the challenges democracy faces in the digital age," said Evan Greer, deputy director of Fight for the Future, "Calls for more censorship, whether they come from the left or right, pose a dangerous threat to legitimate freedom of speech and undermine the power of the Internet as a tool for people to organize, educate themselves, and challenge tyranny and corruption. Do we really want an Internet where giant tech companies like Facebook are the arbiters of what is 'real' and what is 'fake' and can censor whatever they want without oversight or accountability?"
"Dragnet censorship operations, whether related to copyright or political content, always come with serious unintended consequences, where legitimate content is taken down. Lawmakers who are concerned about the power that large tech companies have to spread misinformation should call for more transparency and more competition, not more censorship," she continued, "One simple policy decision on the table right now is restoring net neutrality protections, which allow startups and small businesses to thrive and compete with giants like Twitter and Facebook, leading to more decentralization that makes coordinated misinformation campaigns much harder."
Facebook has previously been exposed censoring content by groups on both the left and the right, as well as by marginalized communities. Fight for the Future condemns Facebook's decision to censor a legitimate protest page because of a link to a single "inauthentic" account, and calls on the platform to cease any similar censorship plans, and instead focus on transparency initiatives to make it easier for Internet users to know who is paying for the content they're seeing.
Fight for the Future is a group of artists, engineers, activists, and technologists who have been behind the largest online protests in human history, channeling Internet outrage into political power to win public interest victories previously thought to be impossible. We fight for a future where technology liberates -- not oppresses -- us.
(508) 368-3026LATEST NEWS
Muslim Lawmakers Decry 'Vile' Bipartisan Islamophobic Attacks on Zohran Mamdani
The lawmakers asserted that "smears from our colleagues on both sides of the aisle" cannot be allowed to continue.
Jun 27, 2025
All four Muslim members of the U.S. House of Representatives on Friday condemned their colleagues' Islamophobic attacks on Democratic New York City mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani, which have come not only from Republicans but also from at least two congressional Democrats representing the candidate's home state.
"The vile, anti-Muslim, and racist smears from our colleagues on both sides of the aisle attacking Zohran Mamdani cannot be met with silence," Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), André Carson (D-Ind.), and Lateefah Simon (D-Calif.) said in a joint statement.
"At a time of increased violence against elected officials, we cannot allow the attacks on Zohran Mamdani to continue."
Mamdani—a democratic socialist who would be the first Muslim mayor of the nation's largest city if he wins November's general election—has come under fire by Republicans including Rep. Andy Ogles of Tennessee, who on Thursday formally appealed to U.S. Attorney Pam Bondi to initiate proceedings to denaturalize and deport "little Muhammad."
Earlier this week, Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) posted a photo of Mamdani wearing a traditional tunic with the caption, "After 9/11 we said, 'Never Forget.' I think sadly we have forgotten."
As of Friday afternoon, no Democratic member of Congress from New York had explicitly condemned their GOP colleagues' Islamophobic remarks. To the contrary, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) falsely claimed Thursday that Mamdani had made references to "global jihad" and spuriously asserted that "globalize the intifada"—a call for Palestinian liberation and battling injustice—is a call to "kill all the Jews."
Freshman Rep. Lauren Gillen (D-N.Y.) also falsely accused Mamdani of "a deeply disturbing pattern of unacceptable antisemitic comments."
The four Muslim lawmakers said in their statement that "these hateful, Islamophobic, and racist tropes have become so entrenched and normalized in our politics."
"We know these attacks all too well," they added.
Omar and Tlaib have been on the receiving end of Islamophobic attacks by House colleagues and outside death threats for years, stemming in part from Omar's status as refugee and Tlaib's as the only Palestinian American in Congress.
Like Mamdani, both lawmakers have also been targeted from both sides of the aisle for their support for Palestinian liberation, as well as their opposition to Israel's invasion, occupation, colonization and apartheid in Palestine, and the assault and siege of Gaza that are the subject of an ongoing International Court of Justice genocide case.
Advocacy groups have reported a sharp increase in anti-Muslim and anti-Palestinian hate incidents since the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led assault on Israel, a climate reminiscent of the pervasive Islamophobia following the September 11, 2001 attacks. There has also been a surge in antisemitism as Israeli forces obliterate Gaza, although critics have decried the widespread conflation of opposition to Zionism with hatred of Jewish people by groups including the Anti-Defamation League.
"At a time of increased violence against elected officials, we cannot allow the attacks on Zohran Mamdani to continue," the four lawmakers stressed. "They directly contribute to the ongoing dehumanization and violence against Muslim Americans. We unequivocally reject the normalization of anti-Muslim hate and fearmongering and call on elected leaders across our country to speak out."
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) also issued a statement Friday condemning the "outpouring of disgraceful, dangerous, racist ideology from sitting members of Congress and [Trump] administration officials following Zohran Mamdani's win in the New York mayoral primary."
Jayapal continued:
The constant displays of Islamophobia are an affront to the millions of Muslim Americans and Muslims around the world. One of the most jarring called for the denaturalization and deportation of Mr. Mamdani, an American citizen who just won a massive Democratic primary with more votes than that member, Mr. Ogles, could ever hope to win. This is an insult to voters in New York City who take democracy seriously.
Denaturalization of U.S. citizens is part of the Trump playbook to attack all legal immigration. It is completely outrageous and flies in the face of the laws of this country.
"The hateful language directed at Mr. Mamdani will get someone killed, and we all should be outraged," Jayapal added. "It must end. Every person who cares about democracy, freedom of religion, and the right for all Americans to be treated equally should speak out immediately against these insane and dangerous attacks."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Supreme Court Religious Opt-Out Ruling 'Could Wreak Havoc on Public Schools'
The ruling, said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, reflects the right-wing majority's "failure to accept and account for a fundamental truth: LGBTQ people exist."
Jun 27, 2025
A day after many LGBTQ+ Americans celebrated the 10th anniversary of the landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling that established marriage equality in the United States, right-wing Justice Samuel Alito suggested in a new decision that public schools should not promote "acceptance of same-sex marriage."
Alito's opinion was handed down in a 6-3 ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor, in which the high court's right-wing majority held that parents should be permitted to opt their children out of certain lessons in public schools on religious grounds.
The ruling stemmed from a lawsuit filed by parents of several religious backgrounds in Montgomery County, Maryland, who sued the county's school system for not giving parents advance notice and an opportunity to opt out of a curriculum that included storybooks dealing with LGBTQ+ themes.
The books included Pride Puppy, about a dog that gets lost at an LGBTQ+ pride parade; Love, Violet, about a girl who has a same-sex crush; Born Ready, about a transgender boy; and Uncle Bobby's Wedding, about a gay couple getting married.
Alito pointed to the latter book in particular in his opinion.
"It is significant that this book does not simply refer to same-sex marriage as an existing practice," wrote the judge. "Instead, it presents acceptance of same-sex marriage as a perspective that should be celebrated."
Elly Brinkley, staff attorney for U.S. Free Expression Programs at the free speech group PEN America, noted the timing of Alito's comments about marriage equality.
"Just after the 10th anniversary of Obergefell v. Hodges and as we celebrate Pride Month, the Supreme Court has delivered a devastating blow to the dignity of LGBTQ+ people and families," said Brinkley. "This ruling means that parents can opt their children out of any classroom activity that acknowledges same-sex marriages, the right to which this very court held was guaranteed by the Constitution."
The right-wing majority ruled that Montgomery County Public Schools must allow families to opt out of any lessons that parents believe will interfere with their children's religious education, including stories or discussions with LGBTQ+ themes.
"This ruling threatens to give any religious parent veto power over public school curricula. If this dangerous logic is carried forward, it could unravel decades of progress toward inclusive education and equal rights."
Legal scholars said that in addition to stigmatizing the families of an estimated 5 million children in the U.S. who have one or more LGBTQ+ parents, the ruling could pave the way for parents to argue that their children shouldn't be exposed at school to materials involving any number of topics, including evolution, yoga, and mothers who work outside the home—all issues that have been the subject of earlier, unsuccessful lawsuits against schools.
"The decision could have far-reaching consequences for public schools' ability to create an inclusive and welcoming environment that reflects the diversity of their communities, as well schools' ability to implement any secular lesson plan that may trigger religious objections," said the ACLU, which filed an amicus brief in the case arguing that the school district's "policy prohibiting opt-outs from the English Language Arts curriculum is religiously neutral and applicable across the board."
Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU's Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, said that religious freedom is "fundamentally important" under U.S. law.
But freedom of religion, Mach said, "shouldn't force public schools to exempt students from any secular lessons that don't align with their families' religious views. This decision could wreak havoc on public schools, tying their hands on basic curricular decisions and undermining their ability to prepare students to live in our pluralistic society."
Cecilia Wang, national legal director of the ACLU, added that parents with religious objections will now be "empowered to pick and choose from a secular public school curriculum, interfering with the school district's legitimate educational purposes and its ability to operate schools without disruption—ironically, in a case where the curriculum is designed to foster civility and understanding across differences."
Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented in the case, with Sotomayor making the unusual move of announcing her dissent from the bench.
Citizens fully experiencing the United States' multicultural society, said Sotomayor, "is critical to our nation's civic vitality. Yet it will become a mere memory if children must be insulated from exposure to ideas and concepts that may conflict with their parents' religious beliefs."
She also accused the majority of making a "myopic attempt to resolve a major constitutional question through close textual analysis of Uncle Bobby's Wedding," which revealed, she said, "its failure to accept and account for a fundamental truth: LGBTQ people exist."
The ruling is the latest victory for right-wing advocates of what they view as religious freedom at the high court; other recent rulings have allowed a web designer to refuse to make a website for same-sex couples and a high school football coach to pray with his team at school games.
Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, called Friday's ruling a "deeply troubling outcome for public education, equality, and the constitutional principle of the separation between state and church."
"This ruling threatens to give any religious parent veto power over public school curricula. If this dangerous logic is carried forward, it could unravel decades of progress toward inclusive education and equal rights," said Gaylor. "Public schools must be grounded in facts and reality and not subject to religious censors."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Congress Can't Sit Back': Anti-War Groups Call on Senate to Invoke War Powers Act in Friday Vote
More than 41,000 people have signed a petition calling on Congress to invoke the War Powers Act to limit Trump's ability to strike Iran without congressional authorization.
Jun 27, 2025
The U.S. Senate will vote Friday evening on whether to invoke the War Powers Act, limiting President Donald Trump's ability to launch a war with Iran.
With the vote looming, anti-war groups are turning up the pressure, urging their senators to reassert Congress's ability to check the president's power after he unilaterally inserted the U.S. into Israel's war with Iran by launching airstrikes on three Iranian nuclear sites last weekend.
More than 41,000 people have signed a petition launched by the progressive group MoveOn Civic Action, which calls on Congress to vote for the resolutions introduced in both the House and Senate in recent weeks.
"By launching strikes on Iran without congressional approval, Trump endangered civilians in the U.S. and around the world, while dragging our country closer to another endless war," said MoveOn spokesperson Britt Jacovich. "Congress has a responsibility to the people who elected them to check this abuse of power and take urgent action to prevent the U.S. from being pulled into another deadly and costly conflict."
The vote on the Senate resolution, introduced by Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), will take place Friday at 6:00 pm Eastern time. A vote on the House resolution introduced by Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) has not yet been scheduled.
The War Powers resolution, which would require Trump to receive congressional approval for future strikes on Iran, has overwhelming support from Senate Democrats. However, according to reporting from Punchbowl News Friday, Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), a notorious pro-Israel hawk, is expected to vote no.
If all other Democrats vote yes, they'd still need five Republicans to join them. The libertarian Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has also signaled his support for the resolution. But the rest, including seven who voted for a similar resolution in 2020, have remained tight-lipped about Friday's vote.
The majority of Americans, 56%, said they disapproved of Trump's weekend strikes against Iran in a YouGov poll published Tuesday. They are even more strongly opposed to further escalations, with 84% saying in a Reuters/Ipsos poll that closed Monday that they were worried about growing conflict between the U.S. and Iran.
On Monday, Trump announced that a cease-fire had been brokered between Israel and Iran. But with the two countries accusing one another of violating the truce, doubt remains about whether it will hold.
Cavan Kharrazian, a senior policy advisor for the group Demand Progress, said that uncertainty is all the more reason Congress must assert itself to stop further escalations from the United States.
"In just days, we've gone from a supposed two-week decision window to immediate U.S. airstrikes, a brief cease-fire, Israel and Iran trading fire again, and now another fragile pause," Kharrazian said. "We strongly support diplomatic efforts to end this crisis—but Congress can't sit back and hope for the best while the risk of U.S. involvement in unauthorized hostilities remains."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular