SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
censorship
Trump Event Broadcast With No Audio After He Booted Press Pool Members
A host on the Trump-friendly Newsmax network said it seemed his exile of the press was "backfiring just a little bit.”
Sep 21, 2026
It turns out that President Donald Trump may not have thought through all the consequences before he banned some of his most hated news outlets from the White House.
After Trump declared CNN, MS NOW, and Politico "fake news" and exiled them from the White House grounds on Friday, the other networks that make up the White House press pool—including ABC, CBS, NBC, and even Fox News—agreed to boycott their pool duties on Monday in solidarity with the banned outlets.
"There will be no replacement pool put in place," wrote Bryan Boughton, Fox News’ Washington bureau chief and chair of the White House television pool, in an internal notice to news organizations obtained by Politico.
It became clear exactly what that meant when the White House attempted to broadcast a ribbon-cutting ceremony for Trump's new helipad on the White House lawn on Monday afternoon.
The president's voice could be heard faintly. But his words were inaudible over the whir of a helicopter parked nearby.
"There's no microphone because the pool cameras aren't there," explained Bianca de la Garza, who was covering the event for the Trump-friendly outlet Newsmax.
The anchor said this was maybe "one example" of the president's attack on the media "backfiring just a little bit."
As of Monday afternoon, there is no reported effort by the White House to find a new press pool. This may prove problematic for Trump as he attends the United Nations General Assembly this week.
Meanwhile, the three outlets banned by Trump filed a lawsuit on Monday, arguing that their removal from White House grounds violated the First Amendment. Previous attempts by the Trump administration to ban news outlets from covering its activities have been shot down in court.
Aidan McLaughlin, the Washington correspondent for Vanity Fair, suggested on social media that, at the rate things are going, a lawsuit may not even have been necessary.
"He’s gonna lift the ban by the end of the week," he predicted.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Straight Out of the Authoritarian Playbook': Trump Bans CNN, MSNOW, and Politico From White House
One press freedom advocate said it was "difficult to imagine a more blatant violation of the First Amendment."
Sep 18, 2026
In one of his most direct assaults on the First Amendment, President Donald Trump announced in a Friday afternoon tirade that he would ban CNN, MSNOW (formerly MSNBC), and Politico from the White House.
"I am proud to announce that, effective immediately, I am banning Fake News CNN, MSNOW... and Politico from the White House as a result of their constant 'reporting' FAKE NEWS!" the president wrote in a rambling Truth Social post.
"Media Outlets shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they’re covering the President of the United States, the Trump Administration, or the United States of America," he added, though he did not specify any particular reports he objected to. He added that bans on "Other Fake News Media Outlets" would soon follow.
Trump, who has long portrayed himself as a defender of free speech, has taken unprecedented actions to censor news outlets during his second term, including threatening networks' broadcast licenses through the Federal Communications Commission over unfavorable programming.
As of Friday afternoon, it's unclear whether Trump actually plans to follow through on his White House ban.
Reacting to the news on the air, CNN anchor Brian Stelter said that the network's reporting team "remains at the White House working just like a usual normal Friday afternoon." He added that "right now, there is no indication that the administration is taking any steps to actually follow through on his threat."
"Certainly, if there is an attempt to remove journalists from the White House, well, our cameras are rolling. I think viewers will see it happen," he said.
"CNN stands fully behind our White House team and their fair and accurate reporting," the network said in a statement following news of the ban. "We have a right under the US Constitution to do that reporting without hindrance or interference from the government."
Bruce D. Brown, the president of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, told Common Dreams in an email Friday that simply banning news organizations from the White House over the content of their reporting "would be flatly unconstitutional."
"The First Amendment is clear that once the White House invites in some journalists, it can't ban others because it doesn't like their reporting," he said. "This is textbook viewpoint discrimination and will be quickly struck down by the courts if challenged."
Federal courts have previously struck down attempts by Trump to bar certain press outlets on First Amendment grounds. Last year, a judge ruled that Trump's removal of the Associated Press from the White House press pool for its refusal to adopt the name "Gulf of America" for the Gulf of Mexico was an unconstitutional form of viewpoint discrimination.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's rule banning reporters from obtaining information not authorized by the Pentagon, which led dozens of journalists to turn over their press badges and walk out of the building in protest, was also struck down as a violation of press freedom.
In light of these previous failures, Jameel Jaffer, the executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, expressed bewilderment that Trump was once again trying to ban news outlets from the White House.
"With so many courts having ruled against him on exactly this point, you’d think President Trump would have learned this lesson by now," he said in a statement.
Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, agreed it was "difficult to imagine a more blatant violation of the First Amendment than Trump banning news outlets from the People’s House for criticizing the government."
"It’s also hard to imagine a dumber move," he said. "The historically unpopular president has been retaliating against the press for years, but it hasn’t helped him. The press keeps exposing his corruption and his failures. These outrageous attacks only demonstrate how scared he is of an informed public."
He added that the press must "fight back to protect their rights, not only to access the White House but to access the public records and whistleblowers this administration so desperately wants to keep from them."
Trump's announcement was met with outrage from Democrats in Congress, who described it as an assault on a basic constitutional freedom.
Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) responded to the news simply by posting the full text of the First Amendment on X.
"Fascist and communist governments limit press access to only favorable outlets, persecute journalists, and suppress truthful reporting," said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) in a post to social media. "Trump’s administration is doing all of that."
Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) agreed the move was "straight out of the authoritarian playbook."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Ed Sheeran Openers Quit Tour as Boycott Begins Over 'Silencing' of Macklemore's Palestine Speech
"The Ed Sheeran debacle will be seen as a turning point in pop culture complicity" with Israel, said one Palestinian-American writer, who described it as "a clear 'South Africa moment.'”
Sep 16, 2026
Singer Ed Sheeran hoped to sidestep controversy by letting rapper Macklemore be removed from his tour over his pro-Palestine remarks. Instead, he's sparked what one writer said could be a "turning point" for how pop culture engages on the issue of Israel and Palestine.
Sheeran responded to the backlash on Tuesday by claiming he was helpless to stop Macklemore’s ouster, which followed the intervention of the pro-Israel New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft, who rallied other NFL venue owners to bar Sheeran's Loop Tour if the “Thrift Shop” rapper continued to perform.
Pro-Israel groups petitioned for Macklemore to be removed from the tour after a performance earlier this month in which he said, “Free Palestine,” and performed his song “Hind’s Hall." The song refers to anti-Israel protests at Columbia University in 2024 and is dedicated to the 5-year-old Palestinian girl Hind Rajab, who was killed by Israeli forces. She was one of more than 20,000 children who have been killed as part of Israel’s military campaign there, according to a UN commission.
But the other four openers said they would not abide what they viewed as elites' political censorship of an artist speaking out against what human rights groups have described as a genocide in Gaza and an occupation of the West Bank that is considered illegal under international law.
Each one of the artists announced on Tuesday that they would no longer tour with Sheeran.
“Artists must not be silenced when they speak up for the oppressed," said the Grammy-winning singer-songwriter Finneas, who has vocally supported the plight of Palestinians for several years. "I stand with Palestine and its people."
The Irish singer Aaron Rowe likewise withdrew from his upcoming shows with Sheeran, though he acknowledged he did not "take the decision lightly."
"Ed has been a friend to me and has changed my life. I could never thank him enough for this," Rowe wrote on Instagram. "But as Irish people, we know all too well about genocide, forced famine, and violent occupation."
“I cannot stand by and allow billionaires to use their position of power to silence the rightful voices of those who speak up against Israeli genocide and who highlight the savage murder of children,” he continued. “I would lose all respect for myself to carry on as normal.”
The Danish pop band Lukas Graham also dropped from the tour, with frontman Lukas Forchhammer writing that artists "should be able to speak about war, about civilians being killed, about children who deserve to grow up. Wherever they live. Whatever flag flies over them."
Forchhammer addressed Kraft, a multibillionaire, who gloated after the fact about having Macklemore blackballed and denounced his expressions of support for Palestinians as "hate speech."
"Money doesn’t give you the right to own the conversation," Forchhammer wrote. "Nobody’s bank balance should decide who gets to speak or which suffering we’re allowed to acknowledge.”
The Irish folk group Beoga—which helped to found the Irish Artist for Palestine Movement—was even more direct, calling out Kraft’s extensive history of donating to pro-Israel groups, including the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which has spent over $100 million attempting to influence the current election cycle, and supporting efforts to punish those who boycott Israeli products.
"It's important that everyone knows that the real enemy is the Zionist lobby. They have worked tirelessly to silence artists who want to speak freely about a genocide happening before our eyes, for fear of retribution," Beoga wrote. "Research how much Robert Kraft has done to fight the [Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions] (BDS) movement. That will give you a sense of what we've all been up against."
"Up the workers. Free Palestine," the group's message concluded.
The exodus of Sheeran’s openers came as momentum built behind a “boycott” of his music spearheaded by the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel, a group based in Ramallah in the West Bank, that helped to cofound the BDS movement.
The group called on Sheeran to "cancel his now compromised US tour" and said until then, artists, audience, and crew members should "boycott it."
In response to Sheeran's explanation that he prefers not to publicly take sides on controversial political issues despite having opinions, the group noted his estimated net worth of more than $500 million and his massive platform as one of the world's most recognized musicians.
"As South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu famously said, 'If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor,'" the group said. "Sheeran had an opportunity to take a stand in solidarity with Palestinians, like millions of other British and Irish citizens have done, and refuse to cave to the pressure... He has so far failed to meet this ethical duty. But it is not too late to reverse course."
Some Western politicians have joined the backlash and amplified calls for a boycott.
US Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), considered a likely presidential candidate in 2028, told a reporter she'd be changing the radio station if Ed Sheeran's music were to come on.
"When you see what Robert Kraft did to line up all the stadiums to censor speech in that one specific way, it's become clear it's not just about one music artist or two music artists," AOC said. "This is about how just a handful of stadium owners and the elite can prevent an entire massive issue, in this case, the genocide in Gaza."
"But it doesn't stop there," she continued. "It could be speaking out about AI. It could be speaking out about any issue, that you can now just get a handful of stadium owners to ensure that an entire person's career can be jeopardized if they speak out about any issue."
Zarah Sultana, a member of the UK Parliament and co-founder of the left-wing Your Party, added that the artists who left Sheeran's tour are "on the right side of history."
“At this rate, Ed Sheeran is going to end up with Boy George opening for him,” she joked on social media, referring to the singer who released a song this summer in support of Israel's assault on Gaza. “No one deserves to be subjected to that.”
Backlash against Sheeran has expanded across the entertainment industry as well, with performers including the children's entertainer Ms. Rachel and popular musicians Kehlani, Tones and I, Zara Larsson, PinkPantheress, and others rallying in support of Macklemore.
And as the music news site Consequence of Sound reported, even some of Sheeran's hardcore fans are revolting. Three prominent Sheeran fan accounts on X, which boast nearly 50,000 followers put together, spoke in solidarity with Macklemore and encouraged Sheeran to use his platform to take a stand, with some vowing to stop covering his tour until he does.
"We hope that Ed can... reflect on everything that happened and understand that, in the face of certain injustices, remaining silent or trying not to choose a side is also a stance," wrote the Brazilian account @EdSheeranBrCom, which has more than 45,000 followers.
Ali Abunimah, the Palestinian-American journalist who co-founded The Electronic Intifada, said in a social media post that he believed that "the Ed Sheeran debacle will be seen as a turning point in pop culture complicity" with Israel, which has seen public support in the US crater since 2023, to the point where Americans, especially younger ones, now say they sympathize more with Palestinians than Israelis.
Likening it to the massive cultural boycott movement against apartheid during the 1980s, Abunimah said the cultural revolt against Sheeran was "a clear 'South Africa moment.'”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Lowlife Coward': Ed Sheeran Declaration of 'I Am Not Complicit' Stirs Fresh Outrage Over Macklemore Ouster
While Sheeran claimed to be adhering to his apolitical brand, one critic argued he was really just "letting a pro-Israel billionaire choose his politics for him."
Sep 15, 2026
Singer Ed Sheeran attempted damage control on Tuesday as he faces outrage following news that the rapper Macklemore had been kicked off his US tour over his pro-Palestine remarks at the behest of a pro-Israel NFL owner.
The "Thrift Shop" rapper had generated outrage from supporters of Israel earlier this month after he shouted "Free Palestine" during a performance at MetLife Stadium in New Jersey and performed "Hind’s Hall," a song honoring Hind Rajab, a 5-year-old Palestinian girl who was killed by Israeli forces in Gaza.
New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft, a billionaire with a long history of donating to pro-Israel causes, took credit for blackballing Macklemore on Monday, describing the rapper's Palestine tributes as "hate speech."
The decision to remove Macklemore has been widely criticized, including by the sister of the late country music icon Dolly Parton, Stella, who wrote on social media Tuesday that "We are in a dire situation when a performer is pulled from a tour for simply calling out genocide in Gaza."
In an Instagram post, Sheeran confirmed that Kraft had indeed rallied other NFL stadium owners to give an ultimatum that their shows would be canceled unless Macklemore was dropped. Sheeran said the decision ultimately did not belong to him, but to the Messina Touring Group, which is promoting the tour.
"I spoke with the venues at length all week to try and build a bridge," Sheeran said. "One of those people was Robert Kraft. I was also involved in direct talks with promoters, along with activists on both sides, to try to find a mutual resolution for all, but the venue's and promoter's decision was final."
The singer-songwriter, who had not previously spoken publicly about the Israel-Palestine conflict, also addressed criticism that he was effectively taking a side and offering tacit support to Israel, whose military campaign in Gaza has been described as a genocide by major human rights groups and has resulted in the deaths of at least 73,000 Palestinians, including more than 20,000 children, according to official estimates.
"I am appalled by the conflict between Israel and Palestine," Sheeran said. "The suffering and pain caused on both sides is a human tragedy. There are too many wars across the world causing immeasurable pain, none of which should be tolerated."
"I am not complicit," he added. "I have my personal views on this devastating conflict. Just because I choose not to speak publicly doesn't mean I don't have them, and it doesn't mean I don't care. Nor does it mean I don't support causes in my own, personal way."
Sheeran did not specify which particular causes he supports or whether any of them relate to the humanitarian crisis in Palestine.
"There is a reason I do not use my professional platform for politics," Sheeran continued. "My audience includes young people, often children, of all backgrounds. Those who come to my shows do not expect a political forum. I respect Macklemore's strength of purpose to stand up and shout for what he believes. However, there is room for multiple approaches to the same end: peace."
In a post on Monday addressing his removal from the tour, Macklemore said that his longtime friend Sheeran was put in "a fucked up position" in which "his typical apolitical stance was being challenged in a way it never had been before."
But critics argued that if there was anyone with the clout to take a stand against the censorious stadium owners, it would be Sheeran. According to PollStar, he is the third-most-popular touring act of the 21st century by worldwide ticket sales through 2025, and he has regularly sold out NFL stadiums, grossing several million dollars per show.
In a social media post, Will Menaker, a co-host of the popular left-wing podcast Chapo Trap House, ridiculed Sheeran's claim that canning Macklemore was "the promoter's decision" rather than his own.
"Sheeran is a big enough artist that he could easily tell the promoters to go fuck themselves if he wanted to," Menaker said, describing the singer as a "lowlife coward whose music sounds exactly like he is."
Media and cultural critic Kaivan Shroff argued in Zeteo that Sheeran was not actually acting apolitically as he claimed, but rather "letting a pro-Israel billionaire choose his politics for him."
"Kraft imposed a political condition on his tour, and then Sheeran enforced it," Shroff wrote. "He did not remain above the dispute; he allowed the billionaire who owned the building to resolve it for him."
"That is what the language of being 'apolitical' conceals," he continued. "It treats the status quo as neutral and resistance to it as political. Kraft can decide that support for Palestinian freedom is beyond the boundaries of acceptable speech; venue owners can threaten a tour; corporate affiliates can calculate the financial exposure and draw their lines in the sand. None of that is described as activism. Politics supposedly only enters the room when Macklemore says those two words onstage."
Shroff wrote that the saga demonstrated "how the ultrawealthy exercise political power without accepting political responsibility."
"They translate an ideological demand into a business necessity, then leave everyone beneath them to describe compliance as unavoidable," he said. "Kraft did not have to answer Macklemore’s argument about Gaza or persuade an audience that saying 'Free Palestine' constituted hate. He could simply threaten the tour instead. Once the money was put in jeopardy, all of a sudden, the unacceptable viewpoint disappeared."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Rapper Macklemore Says NFL Owners Got Him Kicked Off Concert Tour For Criticizing Israel
One writer told Common Dreams it was "a really terrifying example of the power of concentrated wealth to censor speech."
Sep 14, 2026
The rapper Macklemore said he was kicked off a tour with Ed Sheeran on Monday after pressure from NFL owners angered by his harsh criticism of Israel.
Macklemore, who has been an outspoken supporter of Palestinian rights, especially since October 2023, made headlines earlier this month when he said "Free Palestine" onstage during a show at MetLife Stadium in New Jersey, and said he wanted the people of Gaza and the occupied West Bank to know “we have not forgotten about them."
The rapper also performed his 2024 song "Hind's Hall," which debuted amid a wave of campus protests against US support for Israel's military campaign in Gaza. The Israeli assault has killed over 73,000 Palestinians, according to official counts, which major human rights organizations have denounced as a genocide.
The title of the song references pro-Palestinian demonstrators at Columbia University, who occupied a building during the protest wave and named it after Hind Rajab, a 5-year-old girl who was killed by Israeli forces in Gaza after spending hours trapped in a car with the bodies of her relatives and pleading for rescuers to save her.
The performance faced pressure from groups, including the Israeli American Council, which launched a petition calling for Sheeran to boot Macklemore from the tour. The performance was also met with criticism from the singer Pink, who said Macklemore's performance may have left Jewish audience members feeling "scared or targeted," though she said she did not want any artist to be "silenced."
Macklemore emphasized during a subsequent show that Jewish spectators were not the targets of his performance. "To all of my Jewish brothers and sisters: criticism of Israel, criticism of apartheid, being against genocide in no way is a criticism of you," he said. "My message is for peace; love for all human beings to be treated with dignity, respect, and equality.”
On Monday, the group promoting Sheeran's Loop Tour announced that Macklemore would not be performing at the remaining shows on the US leg, telling Rolling Stone that it had been "notified by venues on the upcoming US tour dates that they will not allow a concert to take place with Macklemore on the lineup, which would result in the cancellation of the tour and impact hundreds of thousands of fans."
In an Instagram post on Monday following the announcement, Macklemore gave more details on what he said prompted his exile from the tour.
"Last Monday, in the middle of all the media attention surrounding Pink and what I said at MetLife, Ed [Sheeran] told me that Robert Kraft called him," Macklemore explained. "We were scheduled to play Gillette Stadium later this month, which is owned by the Kraft Group. Ed told me that Kraft said I would not be allowed to perform in his stadium. Ed also told me that Kraft had rallied some of the other stadium owners, and collectively they gave him an ultimatum: 'If Macklemore stays on the tour, you will not be allowed to play in our venues.'"
According to Rolling Stone, other venues where decision-makers allegedly objected to Macklemore's appearance included Lincoln Financial Field in Philadelphia; Mercedes-Benz Stadium in Atlanta; Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis; Bank of America Stadium in Charlotte, North Carolina; AT&T Stadium in Arlington, Texas; and Raymond James Stadium in Tampa, Florida.
Kraft, the multibillionaire owner of the New England Patriots, is one of the nation's most prominent donors to pro-Israel causes and is a close personal friend of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza.
In 2019, Kraft received a $1 million award, presented by Netanyahu, to support his efforts to combat the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement in the US, which aims to use economic means to pressure Israel to end the occupation of Palestinian territory, which is considered illegal under international law.
Since 2022, Kraft has also donated $3 million to the United Democracy Project, the super political action committee affiliated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), according to federal campaign finance records.
As public support for Israel has cratered, particularly among Democratic voters, AIPAC's political fundraising arms have been spending at a record pace, deploying over $100 million to back pro-Israel candidates during the 2026 election cycle.
Macklemore said he did not begrudge Sheeran, whom he described as a "friend" and "brother," for cutting him from the tour in the face of this pressure.
"Ed was in a fucked up position. He knew it. His typical apolitical stance was being challenged in a way it never had been before. He told me that the words 'Free Palestine' and the image of the Palestinian flag were hurtful to a lot of people he spoke with," Macklemore said. "I told him that if those words were more offensive than tens of thousands of Palestinian children being killed by Israel, then there was a fundamental disconnect between where those people stood and where I stood."
Macklemore said he understood why Sheeran and other artists choose to avoid controversial political topics.
"Taking a side can cost you. Money, brand deals, sponsorships, festivals, private shows, relationships, and access. I've lost all of those things," Macklemore said. "But there is no neutral position between the oppressor and the oppressed. When one side has the bombs and bottomless financial and military support from America, refusing to take a side doesn't leave you in the middle."
He emphasized that neither he nor Sheeran was a "victim" in this saga. "The victims," he said, "are the Palestinian people. The men, women, and children who have been killed, starved, displaced, and forced to live through unimaginable violence."
Macklemore noted that he has been making similar statements to those he made at MetLife "for almost three years." But now that he's saying it on bigger stages with bigger artists, he said, "it becomes too much of a risk."
"If I kept doing the shows, saying Free Palestine, with Ed implicitly supporting it, the crowd getting loud and showing undeniable support for Palestinian liberation, what artist might speak out next?" he said. "The stage becomes resistance. Maybe that's why this time it became so important to silence me."
"One of the most effective ways to enforce that silence has been to weaponize the accusation of antisemitism," he continued. "Antisemitism is real. And that is exactly why the word matters too much to be used as a shield against criticism of the Israeli state. When criticizing Israel, opposing Zionism, or saying 'Free Palestine' gets conflated with hatred of Jewish people, it doesn't protect Jewish people. It protects Israel from accountability."
Alex Skopic, an associate editor at Current Affairs magazine and author of a 2023 essay, "A Brief Cultural History of the White Rapper," which discusses Macklemore and his history of political activism extensively, said the rapper's removal from the tour was "a really terrifying example of the power of concentrated wealth to censor speech."
"It's one thing for a stadium owner to cancel a particular artist, but apparently Robert Kraft was able to make a few phone calls and get Macklemore banned from the entire tour," Skopic said in an email to Common Dreams. "It's incredibly dangerous to civil society when one guy has that kind of power to dictate what music can and can't be heard."
He added that it was also "notable who gets canceled and who doesn't," pointing out that in his home city of New Orleans, Ye (formerly Kanye West) recently performed before a packed Superdome, even "after he spent two years spouting Nazi rhetoric," including publicly praising Adolf Hitler on numerous occasions.
"Apparently, our elites consider the words 'Free Palestine' more threatening," Skopic said.
He added that Sheeran "has behaved like an absolute coward."
"When you think about it, Sheeran is one of maybe 30 artists on the planet who's big enough, in terms of money and influence, to say no to nonsense like this from stadium owners," Skopic said. "He chose the money over his integrity. It's bad enough that his music for the last decade has been painfully mediocre, but that shows a real lack of spine."
Given the long history of rappers taking controversial stances, Skopic added that "it's also kind of absurd that Macklemore is one of the foremost people in rap who's speaking out against an ongoing genocide."
"There's a lot of cop-outs to go around," he said. "DJ Khaled, famously, is Palestinian himself and won't say a word. Where's Kendrick Lamar, with his massive platform? Where are any of them?"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Book on Media Complicity in Gaza Genocide Pulled From 'Lily-Livered Library' in Australia
"Is the idea that nothing critical of Israel can ever stand?" asked one critic. "Because the lobby groups keep telling us there’s a difference between prejudice and criticism, but they keep acting like there’s not."
Aug 18, 2026
A public library in metropolitan Sydney, Australia confirmed Tuesday that it removed a book critically examining Western media coverage of Israel’s annihilation of Gaza from its shelves, reportedly after a complaint that its prominent display was distressing to a survivor of last year’s mass shooting targeting a Hanukkah celebration in Bondi Beach.
How to Sell a Genocide: The Media’s Complicity in the Destruction of Gaza, by US journalist and media critic Adam Johnson, was pulled from Waverley Library in Bondi Junction and placed under review. JWire reported last week that the Waverley Council removed the book after a Bondi massacre survivor saw it displayed on the library's “New Release/Hot Item” shelf.
However, Johnson said Tuesday on X that "British-Australia media keep buying this line that my book was pulled from the library after a 'complaint from a Bondi attack survivor.' We have no evidence this is true. This is simply the story they’re telling. Has anyone independently verified this chain of events?"
Johnson also noted that the Bondi massacre, in which two gunmen fatally shot 15 victims, "had nothing to do with Palestinians or Gaza."
"There is ZERO link between the two, and it’s false [to] keep implying there was," he added.
Johnson's book, published in April by Pluto Press, argues that US corporate media have helped enable Israel’s devastation of Gaza through sanitizing Israeli actions, obscuring US responsibility, and dehumanizing Palestinians as Israeli forces killed and wounded hundreds of thousands of them in what United Nations experts, human rights groups, a South Africa-led case currently before the International Court of Justice, and many others call a genocide.
Johnson told The Guardian that critics "seem to be objecting largely based on the title using the word ‘genocide.'"
“But ‘genocide’ is not my word, or my finding," he stressed. "The fact of genocide in Gaza is the overwhelming consensus of the human rights world, and it is a wholly mainstream opinion among those tasked with studying and determining such matters."
“That it makes some people upset is unfortunate, but reality is often upsetting," he said. "This particular reality is especially upsetting... to the parents of the over 20,000 children killed by Israel in Gaza since October 2023."
"Do Sydney officials plan on removing pro-Israel books from their libraries because it potentially upsets these community members?” Johnson added.
The Sydney dispute is hardly an isolated case of the silencing of pro-Palestine speech or criticism of Israel's well-documented crimes against humanity and war crimes, for which alleged perpetrator Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is wanted by the International Criminal Court in The Hague.
In March, Adelaide University canceled a venue booking for a literary event featuring Francesca Albanese, the UN special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories. Organizers accused the university of bowing to political pressure.
In the United States, college campuses were the epicenter of suppression. New York University withheld a graduating student's diploma after he condemned Israel’s actions in Gaza during his commencement speech. New York authorities also violently cracked down on NYU's anti-genocide protests, and the school adopted a definition of antisemitism conflating anti-Zionism and hatred of Jews.
Seven miles uptown, Columbia University suspended its chapters of the nonviolent groups Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace.
George Washington University in Washington, DC banned a graduate from campus after she criticized the university’s ties to Israel, while earlier this year the University of Southern Maine withdrew its support for a Palestine conference because it was slated to include remote participation by Albanese. USM officials cited the dubious sanctions imposed on Albanese and her family by the Trump administration.
There has also been widespread censorship and suppression of pro-Palestine speech in countries including Canada, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom.
These incidents are indicative of a wider pattern documented by Irene Khan, the UN special rapporteur on freedom of expression, who in 2024 reported that courses, lectures, and panels on Palestine have been canceled and that institutions in Western Europe and North America have restricted books, art, scholarship, and speech concerning Israel and Palestine.
While some Jewish leaders and groups welcomed the removal of Johnson's book from Waverley Library, others decried the censorship.
“Public libraries belong to all of us, and should host a range of views and topics, be they books about queer families or Israel’s widely condemned war crimes," Bart Shteinman, an executive member of the progressive Jewish Council of Australia, told The Guardian. He also called the decision to pull the book "deeply alarming."
One Palestinian account on Bluesky posted: "Is the idea that nothing critical of Israel can ever stand? Because the lobby groups keep telling us there’s a difference between prejudice and criticism, but they keep acting like there’s not."
Another social media user, this one on X, lambasted what she called the "lily-livered library" for "pandering to the vile zealots who protect Israel, despite the evidence before our eyes."
Rhonda Garad, a researcher at Monash University in Melbourne, bluntly said on X that "we've reached the book-burning stage of the fascist takeover."
Keep ReadingShow Less
ABC Hits Trump FCC With First Amendment Suit Over 'Deeply Un-American' Effort to Strip Broadcast Licenses
"At long last! A broadcast network has found a backbone," said one First Amendment advocate.
Aug 18, 2026
ABC and its parent company Disney filed a First Amendment lawsuit against the Federal Communications Commission on Tuesday over what it called a "deeply un-American" effort by the Trump administration to punish broadcasters for airing speech critical of the president.
The suit comes in response to an April order by the FCC requiring Disney's eight ABC stations to file their broadcast renewal requests years ahead of schedule. As the Knight First Amendment Institute pointed out, it's the first time the FCC has ordered a broadcast station to submit early license renewals in more than 50 years.
The unusual request came after President Donald Trump had repeatedly suggested that networks giving him "negative coverage" should have their broadcast licenses "terminated."
ABC has argued that the license renewal demand is part of an effort to "attack" its First Amendment-protected speech.
"Government censorship is deeply un-American," the lawsuit, filed before the US District Court for the District of Columbia, said. "Acting through the Federal Communications Commission, the administration has waged a retaliatory campaign against ABC for a single reason: it disapproves of what ABC broadcasts."
ABC specifically has found itself in the crosshairs of FCC Chair Brendan Carr, who used license authority to pressure the network to remove late-night host Jimmy Kimmel from the air briefly last year following a critical monologue about Trump and Republicans following the assassination of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk.
The lawsuit quotes what ABC said were blatant efforts by Carr to "coerce" the network into pulling Kimmel, including his ultimatum, "We can do this the easy way or the hard way."
It also notes that the request for the early renewal order was issued just one day after Trump went on another social media tirade against Kimmel over jokes he made about First Lady Melania Trump, which the president claimed inspired an assassination attempt at the White House Correspondents' Dinner. Trump said that Kimmel should “be immediately fired by Disney and ABC.”
Carr has defended the FCC's orders to Disney, stating that they were not about retaliation, but about ensuring that ABC stations operate "in the public interest" as they are required to do under law.
“If broadcasters don’t like that, that’s okay,” Carr told CNBC back in July. “They can become a cable channel, they can become a podcast, they can stream online. But if you want to uniquely be on the public’s airwaves, you have to comply with those obligations.”
Noting previous comments by Carr that public interest considerations should include the "political ideology” of a broadcaster's programming, Monday's lawsuit said the order "thus appears intended to broaden the scope of the agency’s review, including to impermissibly consider the content of ABC programming."
Earlier this year, the FCC also opened an investigation into the daytime talk show The View, alleging that its hosting of interviews with Texas Democratic US Senate candidate James Talarico in February may have violated a rule requiring broadcast stations to give political candidates "equal time" when appearing on air.
ABC has contended that The View has previously been ruled as a "bona fide news interview" program, which is exempt from the rule.
As part of the investigation, the FCC Media Bureau has probed ABC's editorial process, ordering it to produce internal communications among View staff, disclose the political donations of employees, and provide information about ABC's internal guidance for producing interviews
The White House, meanwhile, included The View on a public webpage listing so-called "media offenders." On this page, it singled out the program's co-hosts for the "offenses" of criticizing government officials for “visiting the Alligator Alcatraz ICE detention facility in Florida” and “claiming President Trump was overstepping his authority by constructing a White House ballroom.”
The lawsuit says the FCC's pressure has affected its editorial decision-making. It notes that since the investigation was launched, it has not booked any other congressional candidates on The View.
It also notes that, considering the "risk of resulting administration retaliation," ABC chose to broadcast a speech by Trump in July on its streaming channel ABC News Live in which he made unfounded accusations of rampant voter fraud in the 2020 election, which "it ordinarily would not have done."
Trump again called on the network to have its broadcast license stripped for not airing the speech on its main network. And Carr has said that the FCC would consider that decision as part of the review of ABC's renewal applications.
The lawsuit says the administration is seeking either to mire the company in costly legal fees and intimidate it into compliance or to rip it off the air entirely, as Trump demanded.
"In either scenario," the lawsuit says, "the administration accomplishes its goal of eliminating a perceived media critic: either it gets plaintiffs to fall in line, or it silences them if they refuse."
The lawsuit asks the court to issue a temporary restraining order to prevent the FCC from proceeding with the reviews. It ultimately seeks a ruling that the license-renewal proceedings constitute unconstitutional retaliation that violates the First Amendment.
It notes that the administration has been attempting to coerce other legacy news broadcasters in the same way.
"If the administration gets its way, the message to every media company in the country will be unmistakable: Tell only the stories the administration deems favorable, or face the coercive machinery of the federal government," the lawsuit says. "In such a world, the press could in no way be described as free."
CNN's chief media analyst Brian Stelter described Disney and ABC's lawsuit as "one of the stiffest challenges from any American media company against the Trump administration during Trump's return to office."
Press freedom advocates welcomed the lawsuit as a sign that media outlets were beginning to fight back against the administration's strong-arming tactics rather than appeasing them.
"At long last! A broadcast network has found a backbone and is suing to stop the administration’s bullying and censorship," said Nico Perrino, the executive vice president of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE).
“It’s about time for someone to take Carr and his FCC to court over their endless campaign of intimidation and retaliation against journalism that displeases Carr’s thin-skinned boss,” said Seth Stern, chief of advocacy for the Freedom of the Press Foundation.
"Carr knows the FCC is not the journalism police and said so regularly himself before he decided to throw away any integrity he once had to kiss up to Trump," Stern added. "Countless others whose First Amendment rights have been chilled by Carr’s antics should follow Disney’s lead.”
ABC has faced criticism for bowing to pressure from Trump in the past. In 2024, after Trump won the presidential election, the network agreed to pay out $15 million after he sued over comments made by anchor George Stephanopoulos, who stated that the president had been found “liable for rape” by a jury when he’d technically only been found liable for “sexual abuse." The president's case against the network was widely viewed as legally dubious.
That lawsuit was seen as an opening of the floodgates for Trump's efforts to coerce and control the media during his second term, and other networks, fearful of retaliation, would follow with their own concessions to avoid his wrath.
Aaron Blake, a senior political reporter at CNN, said ABC's decision to fight back against the FCC showed that "today, we're in a different situation."
Keep ReadingShow Less
UK Palestine Action Activists Hit With ‘Completely Disproportionate’ Terrorism Sentences for Israeli Weapons Sabotage
Amnesty UK said the defendants "were sentenced as terrorists because prosecutors want to make an example of them."
Jun 12, 2026
In a decision that Amnesty International described as "completely disproportionate," four demonstrators with the outlawed group Palestine Action were sentenced as terrorists in the UK on Friday after being convicted for causing damage at an Israeli weapons factory in 2024 to protest the genocide in Gaza.
Supporters of the so-called "Filton 4" were filmed crying and embracing outside Woolwich Crown Court in London as the judge, Mr Justice Jeremy Johnson, handed down sentences ranging from four years and eight months to seven years and eight months to the four young defendants.
Charlotte Head, 30; Leona Kamio, 30; and Fatema Rajwani, 21, were convicted of criminal damage last month after a break-in at a factory in Bristol owned by the Israeli company Elbit Systems, where they smashed up over a dozen drones and other military equipment, causing around £1.2 million, or $1.6 million, of damage.
A fourth defendant, 23-year-old Samuel Corner, was also convicted for the damage, as well as grievous bodily harm without intent for striking a policewoman on the scene with a sledgehammer, fracturing her spine.
🇬🇧 🇵🇸 Four Palestine Action Activists Sentenced as ‘Terrorists’ in UK Legal First
Four activists who raided an Elbit Systems arms factory near Bristol in 2024 were sentenced as “terrorists” Friday at Woolwich Crown Court, in what supporters said is the first time UK protesters… pic.twitter.com/gC4MvAXfz4
— Drop Site (@DropSiteNews) June 12, 2026
In what has been described as a legal first for Britain, Johnson sentenced the four defendants as terrorists, although three had only been convicted of property damage. He did so under the Sentencing Act of 2020, which allows nonterrorism crimes to be treated as terrorism if they meet certain criteria.
Elbit's drones have been documented in use during attacks on civilians, including the April 2024 strike on a World Central Kitchen convoy that killed seven aid workers.
Last month, 22-year-old Zoe Rogers, another activist who took part in the Elbit raid but was acquitted, said she believed that because of their sabotage of the drones, "innocent lives were saved" in Gaza.
However, Johnson did not allow the defendants to explain the reason for their actions as part of the trial, nor were jurors informed that the defendants could later receive sentences for terrorism.
Because the protesters had caused “serious damage to property” for the purpose of “advancing a political or ideological cause,” Johnson determined that the protesters could be sentenced as terrorists using the broad definition from the Terrorism Act 2000.
The terrorism designation means that defendants will have to serve a minimum of two-thirds of their sentences in prison and will be required to register as terrorists with the police for the next 15 years.
Attorneys for the defendants said they were not informed that their clients were at risk of being sentenced for terrorism and accused the prosecution of submitting key evidence, including a report on the cost of damage to the factory, “at the 59th minute of the eleventh hour," giving them little time to form a rebuttal.
The defendants’ attorneys described the precedent that someone could be sentenced for terrorism after being convicted of a nonviolent offense as unprecedented and dangerous to speech.
“It’s wrong for someone to be sentenced for a more serious offense of which they have not been convicted,” said Corner's attorney, Tom Wainwright, who noted that similar measures could have been used to sentence earlier protest movements, like the suffragettes or other anti-war demonstrators who sabotaged military equipment, for terrorism simply because their actions had a political motivation.
Head's attorney, Rajiv Menon, described the attempt to sentence his client as unprecedented, and warned that it was “an invitation to chilling, creeping authoritarianism that undermines the very fabric of our society."
After their conviction, Wainwright hailed the protesters as people of conscience: "[The drones] may have been involved in taking the lives of men, women, and children in Gaza. That is why they acted. That’s something that—in a sane world—would be commended.”
In a post to social media following news of the conviction, Amnesty UK condemned the use of terrorism powers in this case.
"It is completely disproportionate to punish protesters for criminal damage as if they were terrorists, a sentence which stays with you for life," the human rights group said.
More than 70 people were arrested for supporting the proscribed group Palestine Action outside Woolwich Crown Court.
The arrests happened as four members of Palestine Action were sentenced over a separate incident. pic.twitter.com/kRkXEjbPFm
— Channel 4 News (@Channel4News) June 12, 2026
The sentencing comes amid a broader crackdown in the UK against pro-Palestine speech and protest that has ramped up even under a Labour government, which has sought to label even peaceful demonstrations as terrorism.
Following another case in which Palestine Action protesters vandalized military equipment—this time on a UK Royal Air Force base—the government of Prime Minister Keir Starmer in 2025 used the same terrorism law cited by Johnson to label the group as proscribed, effectively making it illegal to belong to it or publicly support it.
Police have arrested numerous peaceful protesters for no other crime than holding signs that read: "I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action."
Amnesty said in May that more than 3,300 people had been arrested across the UK since the proscription took effect and that more than 1,200 protesters had been charged with terrorism-related offenses.
Eight other Palestine Action activists, including four others who have been accused of involvement with the Elbit break-in, went on a lengthy hunger strike this past winter to protest their confinement in prison for more than a year without trial, during which time they alleged that they were denied needed medical care and had their communication with the outside world censored.
Amnesty said the Filton 4 "were sentenced as terrorists because prosecutors want to make an example of them."
On Friday, as hundreds rallied outside the court against the terrorism sentence, more than 100 peaceful protesters were also arrested for allegedly supporting Palestine Action.
Video of one of the arrests, published by Channel 4 News, shows police officers lifting an elderly woman by her arms and legs and dragging her away from a larger group of people holding signs.
"You're under arrest under Section 13 of the Terrorism Act," one officer is heard saying.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Let's Call This What It Is: Censorship': Fired '60 Minutes' Journalists Speak Out
Cecilia Vega, one of several journalists ousted from the show, said many of her colleagues "have had to fight to maintain editorial independence" under CBS News' new Trump-aligned corporate owners.
May 29, 2026
A group of veteran “60 Minutes” journalists was fired on Thursday as CBS News’ recently installed right-wing editor-in-chief, Bari Weiss, moves to reshape the network in her image. Some of the ousted employees are describing their mass firing as a clear act of political “censorship.”
News had already broken earlier this week that correspondent Sharyn Alfonsi was on the way out after more than ten years on the flagship news program, after she'd publicly criticized Weiss' decision to delay her story on the Trump administration's deportation of immigrants to a notorious Salvadoran torture prison, the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT), late last year.
But Alfonsi's departure was rumored to be part of a larger shakeup by Weiss, who has been accused of molding the network into a mouthpiece for the Trump administration following the government-approved acquisition of CBS's parent company, Paramount, by billionaire David Ellison, owner of Skydance.
On Thursday, the hammer finally fell. In addition to the formal firing of Alfonsi, The Washington Post reported that Weiss had also fired Tanya Simon, who’d worked on the show for a quarter-century and had recently taken on the role of executive producer. Correspondent Cecilia Vega—who had also covered CECOT for the network before Weiss' arrival—was canned as well, even though her contract was not set to expire until March 2027. So was executive editor Draggan Mihailovich.
In a memo to staff on Thursday, Weiss and CBS News President Tom Cibrowski said the firings were the result of them “building a show that thrives in the 21st century.”
“That requires a new approach,” they said, outlining their goals of “expanding ‘60 Minutes’ beyond a one-hour television broadcast, deepening its role across CBS News, and holding everything we produce to the ambition, fairness, and fearlessness that have defined ‘60 Minutes’ at its best.”
To fill the role of executive producer, Weiss brought in a network outsider, Nick Bilton, a former technology columnist at The New York Times and producer of documentaries for HBO and Netflix. Weiss called him “one of the most entrepreneurial journalists of our time and the perfect leader for one of the most entrepreneurial news brands of all time.”
Though Weiss reportedly viewed Simon as a “bad leader” who “couldn’t control the staff,” according to one source who spoke anonymously with The New York Post, Simon announced her departure with warm words for those who’d continue working on “60 Minutes.”
“While leadership has decided it is time for a new chapter—I want to be unequivocally clear about one thing: It has been an immense privilege to lead this broadcast, and I could not be prouder of what we have built, fought for, and delivered together over the last year," Simon said in a statement published Thursday. "'60 Minutes' has always been more than just a broadcast: It is an institution built on independence, grit, and rigorous search for the truth.“
But Vega gave a more candid explanation for her and her colleagues' firings.
"In recent months, my producing teams and I have experienced efforts to insert political bias into our stories," she said in a statement Thursday. "Reporting teams have held back on submitting story pitches about important news topics out of fear of the internal repercussions."
"Let's call this what it is: censorship, both imposed and self-driven," she continued. "It is dangerous for the show and dangerous for democracy."
Vega's criticisms mirror those made earlier this week by Alfonsi, who said her firing was "a deliberate choice to penalize a journalist for refusing to sanitize factually accurate reporting."
In December, Weiss abruptly pulled Alfonsi's story featuring the testimony of some of the men who were tortured in the CECOT prison shortly before it was set to air, citing a lack of commentary in the segment from Trump administration officials, who had repeatedly ignored the journalists’ requests for an interview. At the time, Alfonsi said Weiss had effectively given the government a “kill switch” on critical reporting. The segment eventually went to air the next month with some editing.
Following her ouster on Thursday, Vega described her own efforts to oppose what she viewed as politically-motivated meddling by network higher-ups.
"I held the line and refused to incorporate suggestions that offend the conscience," she said. "I know from many conversations with colleagues that many producing teams and correspondents working on the show today have had to fight to maintain editorial independence with regularity."
“I am far from the only ‘60 Minutes’ correspondent who has asked herself, ‘What is my personal red line? How much can I push back before I pay the price?'" Vega added.
She said she was proud of her work at '60 Minutes' and cited her reporting on CECOT for the program, which won a DuPont Columbia journalism award, as one of her finest achievements.
Weiss' overhaul of '60 Minutes' comes as Ellison eyes the merger of Paramount with another major media conglomerate, Warner Bros. Discovery, which owns CNN.
President Donald Trump has said it's “imperative” that any acquisition of Warner Bros. includes CNN and has publicly denounced a rival bid for the company by Netflix.
Earlier this week, Reuters reported that antitrust regulators at the Department of Justice appeared ready to approve a $110 billion takeover by Paramount following meetings with Ellison and other company executives.
A group of journalists—including tech reporter Kara Swisher, former CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta, and NBC News legal analyst Katie Phang—warned at an event hosted earlier this week by a coalition of press freedom groups that, especially in the wake of Alfonsi's firing, the government-approved consolidation of media posed a dangerous threat to the future of journalistic freedom.
“I think what’s happening right now is pretty dangerous,” Acosta said. “To essentially announce the departure of Sharyn Alfonsi from 60 Minutes is a very in-your-face move by some people who don’t care very much about the First Amendment.”
“Folks need to use a little bit of their imagination here to recognize what may be coming down the pike,” he said, warning that the Trump administration was building a “strange oligarchical empire… attempting to do state media.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'We Refuse to Be Silenced': Gaza Doctors Documentary Censored by BBC Wins Prestigious Award
“Just a question to the BBC,” said the documentary's executive producer. “Given you dropped our film, will you drop us from the BAFTAs screening later tonight?”
May 11, 2026
The makers of a documentary about Israeli attacks on healthcare workers and infrastructure in Gaza won a prestigious BAFTA award on Sunday—and they used their acceptance speech to lash out at BBC for refusing to air their work.
The film, "Gaza: Doctors Under Attack," was originally scheduled to be aired by the BBC in early 2025 before the network announced in June that it would not be releasing the documentary because it had "come to the conclusion that broadcasting this material risked creating a perception of partiality."
Shortly after, the documentary was picked up by the UK-based Channel 4 and aired in July.
UK journalist Ramita Navai, the main reporter of the documentary, criticized the BBC for declining to show the film, which she denounced as a political decision.
“Israel has killed over 47,000 children and women in Gaza so far," Navai said. "Israel has... targeted every single one of Gaza’s hospitals. It’s killed over 1,700 Palestinian doctors and healthcare workers. It has imprisoned over 400 in what the UN now calls a ‘medicide.’ These are the findings of our investigation that the BBC paid for but refuses to show. But we refuse to be silenced and censored."
🇵🇸🇬🇧 A Gaza documentary the BBC paid for and refused to air just won a Bafta.
The filmmakers used their acceptance speech to call out the BBC directly.
Presenter Ramita Navai:
"We refuse to be silenced and censored."
The BBC then edited portions of her remarks from its own… https://t.co/xLRLfdLV6W pic.twitter.com/K8pYhOzJTd
— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) May 11, 2026
Ben de Pear, the film's executive producer, also pointed the finger at the BBC as he accepted the BAFTA award for best current affairs television program.
"Just a question to the BBC,” said de Pear, according to The Hollywood Reporter. “Given you dropped our film, will you drop us from the BAFTAs screening later tonight?"
As reported by Al Jazeera, de Pear after accepting the award also praised Palestinian journalists Jaber Badwan and Osana Al Ashi, who contributed on-the-ground footage for the documentary at the risk of their own lives.
"[We] woke up every day wondering if the two journalists on the ground were still alive," de Pear told reporters backstage.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy