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
freedom of expression
40 Groups Slam 'Deep Hypocrisy' of Saudi-Hosted Internet Governance Forum
"Is this a bad joke?" asked one campaigner.
Sep 06, 2024
As Saudi Arabia prepares to host a global internet summit in December, 40 human rights groups on Friday urged authorities in the kingdom to release everyone imprisoned for online expression, including an activist serving a 27-year prison sentence for criticizing her country's severe repression of women.
The 40 groups said in a joint statement that "Saudi Arabia must free all individuals arbitrarily detained solely for their online expression ahead of hosting the United Nations Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Riyadh, which will take place from December 15-19."
"It is counter to the IGF's stated values for Saudi Arabia to host the IGF," the organizations asserted. "In 2024 it adopted a thematic focus on advancing human rights and inclusion in the digital age and Saudi Arabia continues to prosecute, lock up, forcibly disappear, and intimidate people into silence for expressing themselves on social media."
As Amnesty International—which accused Saudi Arabia of "deep hypocrisy"—noted:
Saudi authorities have waged a chilling crackdown against people who demonstrate even the slightest sign of dissenting or critical views online. Among those who have been convicted for their online expression is Salma al-Shehab. She was arrested in January 2021 and, after a grossly unfair trial, sentenced in January 2023 to a shocking 27-year prison term followed by a 27-year travel ban on trumped-up terrorism charges, simply because she tweeted in support of women's rights.
In another deeply disturbing case, in January 2024, Saudi Arabia's terrorism court sentenced Manahel al-Otaibi to 11 years in prison in connection with social media posts promoting women's rights and sharing images of herself online at a mall without wearing an abaya (a traditional loose-fitting long-sleeved robe).
Those targeted also include Abdulrahman al-Sadhan, a Red Crescent worker, who in April 2020, after a grossly unfair trial, was sentenced to 20 years, to be followed by a 20-year travel ban, for his satirical tweets, and Mohammad bin Nasser al-Ghamdi, a retired school teacher, who was sentenced to death in July 2023 for criticizing authorities on X (formerly Twitter) and his online activity on YouTube.
"These cases are emblematic of the Saudi authorities' chilling crackdown on freedom of expression, but they are not isolated examples," the 40 groups said in their statement. "Dozens of people in Saudi Arabia, including visitors to the country, have been detained solely for their online expression."
"Consequently," the signers added, "many civil society organizations and advocates, who would ordinarily attend the IGF, have chosen not to travel to Saudi Arabia, fearing that they cannot safely and freely participate in the conference."
Representatives of some of the 40 groups that signed the statement weighed in on Saudi Arabia hosting the IGF.
"Is this a bad joke?" asked Freedom Forward executive director Sunjeev Bery. "There's a phrase for this: 'rights-washing.' Rights-washing is when a human rights violator tries to hide their crimes by wrapping themselves in human rights language and causes."
"Saudi Arabia's dictatorship is one of the most repressive governments on the planet," Bery added. "Saudi internet users who dare to speak their minds are often arrested, tortured, and jailed for years."
Amnesty International secretary general Agnès Callamard said that "Saudi Arabia's authorities have 100 days before the IGF begins to demonstrate that they will ease their draconian crackdown on freedom of expression, and to show that they will use this event as an opportunity to carry out genuine reforms rather than as part of an image-washing campaign."
"In order to prove that their hosting of the conference about the internet's future is more than just a cynical PR exercise, the Saudi authorities must release all those arbitrarily detained solely for exercising their right to freedom of expression online before the IGF begins," she added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Allies Vow to Fight Off Big Oil Lawsuit Aimed at Ending 'Existence' of Greenpeace
"No matter who you are, no matter what your politics are, this is one of the most important issues in America right now," one Greenpeace spokesperson said.
Aug 02, 2024
Nearly 300 organizations and tens of thousands of individuals have signed an open letter supporting Greenpeace USA against a $300 million lawsuit brought against the environmental group by Energy Transfer—a company with a majority stake in the Dakota Access pipeline.
The corporation is falsely accusing Greenpeace of being the driving force behind Indigenous-led protests against the Dakota Access pipeline (DAPL) in 2016 and 2017.
Greenpeace USA announced its supporters on Thursday as it launched a campaign to raise awareness about the lawsuit—which it said could "functionally bankrupt" the organization, threatening its "existence." However, Greenpeace said that the dangers posed by strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs), like the one it faces, extend far beyond one organization.
"No matter who you are, no matter what your politics are, this is one of the most important issues in America right now," Greenpeace USA spokesperson Rolf Skar said in a statement. "Energy Transfer built the Dakota Access pipeline. But they're suing anyway in order to send a message: If you dare to oppose us, we will financially ruin you."
The Dakota Access pipeline drew massive protests from the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, more than 300 other tribal nations, and non-Indigenous allies. While former U.S. President Donald Trump forced the pipeline through shortly after taking office in early 2017, the protests rattled the fossil fuel industry and their allies in government. After 2016, 18 states passed anti-protest laws that shielded around 60% of U.S. oil and gas production and related infrastructure from peaceful protests. The industry also turned to "judicial harassment."
Energy Transfer (ET) initially brought suits against Standing Rock Tribal Chairman Dave Archambault and other Water Protectors, as well as a federal suit against Greenpeace in 2017.
At the time, ET CEO Kelcy Warren told a reporter: "Could we get some monetary damages out of this thing, and probably will we? Yeah, sure. Is that my primary objective? Absolutely not. It's to send a message—you can't do this, this is unlawful, and it's not going to be tolerated in the United States."
"Everyone who says they care about freedom—of whatever political stripe—should join together to support the Greenpeace campaign to protect people's right to speak out against corporate abuses."
While the 2017 cases were all dismissed, ET immediately filed a similar case against Greenpeace in North Dakota state court in 2019. The new case, which is scheduled to go to trial in February 2025, makes what Greenpeace called a "deeply racist" case that Greenpeace, and not Indigenous leaders, coordinated the Dakota Access protests.
"The lawsuit against Greenpeace is also an attack on the Indigenous movement in our fight for self-determination to protect Mother Earth, our waters, sacred and cultural sites, and our youth and future generations," Morgan Brings Plenty of the Standing Rock Youth Council said in a statement. "These colonialist lawsuits are trying to send a warning to anyone who might consider speaking out and to be quiet—any of you could be next."
ET also makes several claims that would set a dangerous precedent if upheld, including denouncing legitimate speech as defamatory and making anyone who is present at a protest liable for things that occurred at the same protest.
"The whole point of this type of lawsuit is to limit freedom of expression, so even if you don't care about climate change, or you don't care about Greenpeace, you should pay attention," Skar said. "What's at stake isn't just Greenpeace or environmentalism, but the fundamental American rights to freedom of peaceful expression and advocacy for all of us."
Greenpeace has circulated a letter to ET that has so far been signed by more than 290 organizations—including 350.org, Public Citizen, ACLU North Dakota, SEIU, Indigenous Environmental Network, and Amnesty International USA—and tens of thousands of individuals, including prominent celebrities and activists like Jane Fonda, Susan Sarandon, Billie Eilish, and Adam McKay.
"This is corporate overreach that is part of a disturbing trend of attacks on advocacy and speech around the world," the letter reads. "We will not allow lawsuits like this one to stop us from advocating for a just, green, and peaceful future. On the contrary, we will ensure they have the opposite effect, increasing the support for organizations like Greenpeace and strengthening the broader movement for justice."
"This legal attack on Greenpeace is an attack on us all," the letter continues. "We will not stand idly by. We will not be bullied. We will not be divided and we will not be silenced."
Organizations also issued individual statements of support.
"Everyone who says they care about freedom—of whatever political stripe—should join together to support the Greenpeace campaign to protect people's right to speak out against corporate abuses," said Robert Weissman, co-president of Public Citizen. "As Greenpeace knows from its own experience, too often corporations use their political, economic, and legal power not just to run PR campaigns justifying their wrongdoing, but to threaten public interest advocates with bad-faith lawsuits (SLAPPs) and other intimidation tactics."
Brian Hauss, a senior staff attorney for the ACLU, said: "Protesters and advocacy groups should never have to fear the weight of groups like ETP as a condition for expressing their First Amendment rights. The court should see this lawsuit for what it is and toss it."
Progressives are also calling for a national legislative solution to the problem of SLAPP suits. While most states do have laws on the books against them, North Dakota is one of the 18 that do not.
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) introduced the Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) Protection Act during Congress' last session, and plans to reintroduce it in September of this year.
"The case against Greenpeace illustrates how mega-corporations can use lawsuits to silence, intimidate, and ruin their critics," Raskin said. "America must demand, and Congress must pass, bipartisan legislation to protect First Amendment rights against ruinous litigation practices."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'For Gaza': Hundreds of Students Stage Walkout at Harvard Commencement Ceremony
The demonstration followed the “unduly harsh punishment” of 13 students barred from receiving their diplomas stemming from their support for Palestinian rights.
May 23, 2024
Update (2:20 PM ET):
Hundreds of graduates walked out in protest at Harvard University's commencement ceremony on Thursday in protest of the war in Gaza and the college's decision not to confer degrees on 13 pro-Palestine seniors.Harvard's controversial decision to block the 13 seniors from graduating strengthened the intensity of Thursday's demonstration, which was "far larger, louder, and more extensive than graduation protests at any other university in the region thus far this spring," according toThe Boston Globe.
Many of the protesting graduates wore keffiyehs, waved Palestinian flags, and carried placards with messages such as "For Gaza." They chanted "Let them walk!" in support of the 13 students during the ceremony before marching out to a nearby church for what one organizer called the "peoples' commencement," the Globe reported.
BREAKING: Hundreds of Harvard students and faculty have walked out of commencement in support of Palestine and the 15 seniors having their degrees withheld for protesting a genocide. pic.twitter.com/D0lGKrmzvq
— Harvxrd Palestine Solidarity Committee (@HarvxrdPSC) May 23, 2024
Earlier:
Harvard University's board on Wednesday rejected a faculty vote to allow 13 seniors who had participated in a pro-Palestine encampment to graduate, provoking outrage from educators and students, some of whom protested outside the commencement ceremony Thursday morning.
The Wednesday announcement followed competing decisions by Harvard institutions in the days leading up to graduation. On May 18, the college's administrative board announced disciplinary actions against students—suspending five and placing more than 20 on probation—for their involvement in the on-campus encampment, which ended last week. This left the 13 seniors ineligible to graduate.
Professors in Harvard's Faculty of Arts and Sciences responded on Monday by voting to amend the list of students receiving degrees to include the 13 students—effectively rejecting the administrative board's decision. Harvard's main governing board, known as the Corporation, had to make the final decision, which they announced in a statement on Wednesday:
Because the [13] students included as the result of Monday's amendment are not in good standing, we cannot responsibly vote to award them degrees at this time. In coming to this determination, we note that the express provisions of the Harvard College Student Handbook state that students who are not in good standing are not eligible for degrees. We also considered the inequity of exempting a particular group of students who are not in good standing from established rules, while other seniors with similar status for matters unrelated to Monday's faculty amendment would be unable to graduate.
Both faculty and students condemned the decision, which The Harvard Crimson called an "unprecedented veto" of the faculty.
"I would expect a faculty rebellion, possibly a faculty rebellion against the entire governance structure, because there's already a fair amount of mistrust toward the Corporation to begin with," government professor Steven Levitsky told the Crimson.
The decision leaves uncertain the immediate future of the 13 students, two of whom have been awarded Rhodes Scholarships to study at Oxford University. "Despite fulfilling their degree requirements, these [13] students will not receive their diplomas, fellowships, and grad funding because of the Corporation's decision," Harvard Out of Occupied Palestine, a student group, wrote on social media. The faculty's vote was a "clear repudiation of the administrative board's unduly harsh punishment," the post said.
Pro-Palestine students also said that the Corporation's decision violated the terms of a deal they had reached with the administration. They ended the 20-day protest on Harvard Yard on May 14 after interim Harvard University President Alan Garber wrote an email promising to "encourage the administrative boards or other disciplinary bodies within the schools to address cases expeditiously under existing precedent and practice (including taking into account where relevant the voluntary decision to leave the encampment), for all students, including those students eligible thereafter to graduate so that they may do so."
Protestors set up outside of Harvard's graduation Thursday morning as the college's other seniors received their degrees.
Good morning from Harvard’s commencement. pic.twitter.com/dMMMZzmsk6
— Harvard Out of Occupied Palestine (@HarvardOOP) May 23, 2024
Protesters gather outside Harvard University commencement after some students denied degrees https://t.co/y5CyZ0LxWv
— WBZ | CBS News Boston (@wbz) May 23, 2024
The tumult at Harvard follows a spring of Gaza-related protests at campuses across the U.S., which have led to thousands of arrests as well as disciplinary action by universities, despite the lack of protestor violence. Many of these colleges still have graduation ceremonies in the coming weeks.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular