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
mccarthyism
Niemöller Was Wrong: When They Came for the Communists, People Didn’t Just Stay Silent
Not just silence, but liberal “appeasement” of the right has brought us here.
Oct 25, 2025
It’s one of the most rousing calls to conscience to come out of the 20th century. I’m thinking of Martin Niemöller’s “First they came for the communists.”
You know how it goes. It begins, “First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out because I was not a communist.” And it ends, “Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”
It’s a powerful statement, and you’ll see it on T-shirts and posters and placards at demonstrations. But when you actually look at our history, it’s not just that good people didn’t speak out. It’s that many Americans threw other Americans under the bus.
The story of the Danish king who wore a yellow star in solidarity with Jewish Danes during World War II is apocryphal. It never happened. So too, while our cultural memory about the McCarthy era romances the refuseniks, hundreds of Americans did comply with the Red Scare, identifying colleagues or associates as communists to protect themselves or preserve their careers. The Levin Center for Oversight and Democracy reports that of the more than 500 people who were called to testify in front of Joseph McCarthy’s Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, only about 100 invoked the Fifth Amendment, refusing to answer questions on self-incrimination grounds. The rest went along.
When someone comes for the anti-fascists, the odds are that some will say, “Antifa is us.” But how many?
This phenomenon was even more pronounced before HUAC (House Un-American Activities Committee), which paralleled McCarthy’s Senate investigations. The “Hollywood 10” refused to testify, but Elia Kazan wasn’t alone in supplying the committee with lists of colleagues who had supposedly suspect ties. Their cooperation frequently allowed them to continue working in the film industry, while those who refused were blacklisted for years.
So too, in our time, when the press and the pundits, and the politicians, and the courts have come for the abortion providers, the anti-Zionists, the teachers of critical race theory, and the nonconforming queers, many didn’t just stay silent. They actively participated in creating suspicion around those people and their principles.
Citing electoral calculus and political pragmatism, liberal “compromises” on abortion law, dating back to Roe v. Wade, contributed to the erosion of reproductive autonomy well before the 2022 Dobbs decision. After 2021, laws restricting “race-conscious instruction” spread to 45 states meeting minimal resistance.
LGBTQ rights have always been dispensable—depending on the political climate. Today, trans Americans, even kids, are isolated, afraid, and at the nation’s highest risk for suicide.
Not just silence, but liberal “appeasement” of the right has brought us here.
Now President Donald Trump and his mob are trying to vilify “Antifa,” an entity that he thinks exists but really doesn’t. Are we going to allow “anti-fascist” to be made suspect?
Innumerable signs held by countless Americans at No Kings protests suggest it won’t be easy. From the older women carrying versions of “Auntie Fa’s cookies don’t crumble for kings” to the green-clad members of Amphifa (Amphibians Against Fascism), to the 76-year-old who walked in Washington, DC with a straightforward “I am Antifa” sign. When someone comes for the anti-fascists, the odds are that some will say, “Antifa is us.” But how many? Others will always seek refuge in cowardice and caving. Our history is brimming with both.
I had a chance to talk with longtime organizer Dolores Huerta, and theater artist Ellen Gavin about their new short video “The People United” recently on my TV and radio program, Laura Flanders & Friends. Find out more at lauraflanders.org.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Jane Fonda Leads Reboot of Father's McCarthy-Era Free Speech Initiative
“They’re betting on our fear and our silence,” Fonda said. “But our industry—and artists around the world—have a long history of refusing to be silenced, even in the darkest times.”
Oct 01, 2025
As the US descends into authoritarianism under President Donald Trump and Republicans, hundreds of celebrities led by actor and progressive activist Jane Fonda on Wednesday revived a free speech initiative originally launched by Hollywood stars including her father during the right-wing repression of the post-World War II McCarthy era.
Fonda and over 550 celebrities rebooted the Committee for the First Amendment, which was first formed in 1947 by a bevy of actors including Henry Fonda in response to hearings held by the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) and blacklisting of actual and suspected communists throughout US society, including Hollywood.
“The federal government is once again engaged in a coordinated campaign to silence critics in the government, the media, the judiciary, academia, and the entertainment industry,” the renewed committee said in a statement. “We refuse to stand by and let that happen.”
According to NPR:
Other members of the newly re-formed committee include filmmakers Spike Lee, Barry Jenkins, J.J. Abrams, Patty Jenkins, Aaron Sorkin, and Judd Apatow; TV show creator Quinta Brunson; musicians Barbra Streisand, John Legend, Janelle Monáe, Gracie Abrams, and Billie Eilish; comedians Tiffany Haddish and Nikki Glaser; as well as actors Mark Ruffalo, Anne Hathaway, Kerry Washington, Pedro Pascal, Natalie Portman, Viola Davis, and Ben Stiller. Another signatory is actor Fran Drescher, who last month ended a term as the president of the SAG-AFTRA union.
"This committee was initially created during the McCarthy era, a dark time when the federal government repressed and persecuted American citizens for their political beliefs," the initiative's founders wrote. "They targeted elected officials, government employees, academics, and artists. They were blacklisted, harassed, silenced, and even imprisoned."
"The McCarthy era ended when Americans from across the political spectrum finally came together and stood up for the principles in the Constitution against the forces of repression," they added. "Those forces have returned. And it is our turn to stand together in defense of our constitutional rights."
Fonda’s committee revival comes after Jimmy Kimmel's late-night talk show was temporarily removed from ABC's airwaves earlier this month following pressure form Brendan Carr, Trump’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chief, over a monologue by the comedian about far-right podcaster Charlie Kirk’s accused assassin. Kimmel's show returned amid massive public backlash.
Fonda has more than 60 years of political activism under her belt, starting with the civil rights and anti-Vietnam War movemements and continuing through Fire Drill Fridays, #StopLine3, and the Jane Fonda Climate PAC in more recent years.
"I'm 87 years old. I've seen war, repression, protest, and backlash. I've been celebrated, and I've been branded an enemy of the state," Fonda said in a letter inviting people to join the committee.
"But I can tell you this: This is the most frightening moment of my life," she continued. "When I feel scared, I look to history. I wish there were a secret playbook with all the answers—but there never has been. The only thing that has ever worked—time and time again—is solidarity: binding together, finding bravery in numbers too big to ignore, and standing up for one another."
“They’re betting on our fear and our silence,” Fonda added without identifying anyone by name. “But our industry—and artists around the world—have a long history of refusing to be silenced, even in the darkest times.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
This Ridiculous, Dangerous Antifa Order Is McCarthyism All Over Again—Possibly Worse
The Trump administration is abusing federal power to silence dissenting voices in a manner that has not been seen in over 70 years. The country survived Sen. Joseph McCarthy, but will it survive what Trump has wrought?
Sep 23, 2025
Free speech stole the show last week during the joint press conference between US President Donald Trump and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer after a British reporter asked point-blank the Yankee wannabe dictator whether free speech is more under attack in Britain or in America, following Jimmy Kimmel’s suspension over Charlie Kirk comments.
At this historical juncture, both Britain and America are at a new low when it comes to freedom of expression. In fact, free speech is under serious attack in most Western societies.
Britain has no equivalent to the First Amendment, but the current draconian speech laws are so outrageous that even traditional liberties are vanishing. British police are arresting people for offensive online speech at record numbers while the right to protest has been severely curtailed.
In Germany, the situation is just as bad, if not worse. Long before recent efforts to stifle pro-Palestinian voices, the country’s laws on freedom of expression stood on tenuous grounds. As the late German jurist Weinfried Brugger noted nearly a quarter of a century ago in a study comparing German and American law on hate speech, if a protester was to shout on the steps of the US Capitol “our President is a pig” and even held painted pictures of the president as a pig “engaged in sexual conduct with another pig in a judge’s robe;” or that “all our soldiers are murders;” or that “the Holocaust never happened,” none of these allegations would lead to criminal prosecution as the First Amendment would protect them. However, criminal law would apply to all of the above messages if the protester made the speech on the steps of the German Bundestag. As further elucidated by Brugger, freedom of speech in Germany is not a “preferred right” and does not deserve “absolute protection.”
For the duration of Trump 2.0, we must be prepared for a barrage of further anti-democratic actions taking aim at any individual, group, or organization whose ideas, beliefs, and actions threaten the ego of the “beloved leader” or simply irritate his idiotic whims
In this sense, conservatives in the US, like Vice President JD Vance, are not totally wrong when they criticize Europe over free speech, even though they are complete hypocrites. Indeed, the problem with Vance and the rest of the MAGA Republicans who are seemingly disturbed by the backsliding of free expression in Europe is that they are not interested in free speech as such; they are interested in controlling it. They only want to protect speech that is aligned with their own ideological beliefs and values. Thus, in his speech to the Munich Security Conference in February, where he scolded Europeans for their failings on free speech, Vance not only spread a lie when he claimed that the Scottish government had sent letters to citizens instructing them that “even private prayer within their own homes may amount to breaking the law” but kept silent about UK government anti-protest legislation, which, as British academic Eric Heinze astutely noted, targets exactly the kind or protests that Trump fears.
Trump returned to the White House with a promise to protect free speech from government censorship. Indeed, just a few hours after his second inauguration, Trump signed Executive Order 14149, titled “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship.” But Trump is a master of doublespeak. His administration has, in turn, carried out a wide-ranging crackdown on universities, student protesters, journalists, lawyers, and the press. The wannabe dictator has accused the press on multiple occasions of being “the enemy of the American people” and has filed personal lawsuits against several news organizations. Under his administration, we are also witnessing the intrusion of the military into civilian life. This type of government action is tantamount to dictatorship, as it constitutes an all-out assault on democracy and the rule of law.
The Trump administration is abusing federal power to silence dissenting voices in a manner that has not been seen since the McCarthy era. Democrats and Republicans alike played the Red Card back in the 1940s and throughout the 1950s in order to silence critics and quash dissent. Trump is doing the same thing by trying to create a climate of fear and suspicion across the country with the boogeyman of the so-called “far left,” especially in the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s killing.
To be sure, there should be no illusions about the evolution of free speech in the United States. The current situation is by no means unique, and the First Amendment has never been as sacred as people seem to think. Despite its exalted status, the First Amendment has been “a dead letter for much of American history” and did not come to life until the early 20th century. And when it did, freedom of expression suffered some major blows, thanks to World War I, which created a wave of jingoism, and the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, which gave rise in turn to an anti-communist alarm known as the Red Scare. In Debs v United States, the Supreme Court upheld Deb’s conviction under the Espionage Act of 1917. Eugene Debs, a leading member of the Socialist Party of America, was convicted for his outspoken opposition to US involvement in World War I and sentenced to ten years in federal prison.
Throughout the 1940s and the 1950s, the First Amendment was censored in the shadows as the suppression of political and social views became a widespread occurrence, spearheaded by a second Red Scare and the rise of McCarthyism. The Smith Act, which was passed by Congress and signed by President Roosevelt on June 28, 1940, was used to monitor immigrants and prosecute members of the Communist Party. In 1951, in a 6-2 decision, the Supreme Court delivered a massive blow to the First Amendment by upholding the constitutionality of the Smith Act in Dennis v United States. In 1947, the Truman administration initiated a loyalty program aimed at rooting out “subversives” and getting rid of homosexuals. Such programs were also established for employment in the private sector as well.
It was only in the 1960s, thanks to growing opposition to the Vietnam War and government attempts to curb protests, that the First Amendment entered mass public consciousness in the United States. When a group of students in Des Moines, Iowa, was suspended for wearing black armbands to school in protest of the Vietnam War and in support of a Christmas truce, the students’ parents challenged the suspensions as a violation of free speech. In a landmark victory for student rights and the First Amendment, in a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in Tinker v Des Moines (1969) that schools are not “enclaves of totalitarianism” and that “neither students nor teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech at the schoolhouse gate.” The Pentagon Papers case defended further the right of free speech, although subsequent US administrations, from Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama to Donald Trump, indicted scores of people “for leaking secrets to the press,” as Lincoln Caplan has underscored in an essay for the Harvard Law Bulletin.
The democratic left has stood up for free speech rights throughout its history. It should remain steadfast in its commitment to freedom of expression and fully and unconditionally reject “cancel culture.”
We are not exactly sure who made the remark that “while history doesn’t repeat itself, it often rhymes,” but it surely applies to the free speech case in the United States. We are now in the midst of a new McCarthy era, and possibly worse. In forcing a comedian and television host like Jimmy Kimmel off the airwaves (Disney reinstated his show after five days of suspension), Trump and his goon FCC Chairman Brendan Carr are following in the footsteps of Nazi minister of propaganda Joseph Goebbels who, in 1939, as the New York Times reported, banned five German entertainers because they “made witticisms about the Nazi regime.”
Thus, for the duration of Trump 2.0, we must be prepared for a barrage of further anti-democratic actions taking aim at any individual, group, or organization whose ideas, beliefs, and actions threaten the ego of the “beloved leader” or simply irritate his idiotic whims. The so-called "radical left" will surely be the main target. In the wake of Charlie Kirk’s killing, Trump described the left-wing activist group Antifa a “sick, dangerous, radical left disaster” and signed an executive order designating it a “domestic terrorist organization.”
Antifa (shorthand for “antifascist”) exists around the world but is not a unified organization and has no leader. As such, it is not clear how the US government plans to prosecute Antifa activists. Either way, this is yet another orchestrated attack on political dissent and freedom of speech by the emerging dictatorial regime in Washington, D.C., under the reign of Donald J. Trump.
The democratic left has stood up for free speech rights throughout its history. It should remain steadfast in its commitment to freedom of expression and fully and unconditionally reject “cancel culture.” Censorship of speech is the first step toward political repression, which is precisely why Trump and his goons are now threatening to punish anyone who speaks ill of their newfound martyr, Charlie Kirk.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular