In the United States, the First Amendment is often celebrated as a foundational freedom. But for decades now, government actions — legislative, executive, policing, legal — have gradually placed more constraints on speech by activists, minorities, and others critical of the status quo. From animal‑rights and environmental groups, to Muslim or civil‑liberties activists, student protesters, Occupy, J20 protestors, up to more recent cases involving Palestinian activism, comedians, or partisan criticism — there’s a thread of increasing suppression. This article traces that thread: how earlier cases set precedents, how legal tools were expanded, how policing and prosecutorial tactics escalated, and how those evolutions shape the current climate.
- Roots in the 1990s / Early 2000s: Environmental, Animal Rights, and “Green Scare” SHAC, ALF / ELF, and the Green Scare
The SHAC (“Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty”) campaign is one of the clearest early examples of suppression via legal/terrorism framing. SHAC activists ran websites publishing communiqués and reports of protests (some of them illegal by mainstream law), and were eventually prosecuted under statutes like the Animal Enterprise Protection Act (AEPA) / Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA). ZNetwork +3 Center for Constitutional Rights +3 Encyclopedia Britannica +3
What stands out is that some of those convicted (often called the “SHAC 7”) were convicted largely for speech or associational activity: maintaining a website, posting information about protests, naming business executives, etc. Some of those actions are arguably protected expression unless they cross into incitement of imminent lawless action. Yet the law and prosecutorial practice stretched those lines. CrimethInc. +3 Encyclopedia Britannica +3 Center for Constitutional Rights +3
Operation Backfire, run by the FBI in the mid‑2000s, led to convictions of environmental / animal rights activists (often under very serious charges) for property damage, arson, etc. Many in activist communities saw this as using the label of “eco‑terrorism” to justify surveillance, undercover work, grand juries, harsh sentencing. Wikipedia +2 The Guardian +2
In these early cases, although injured parties were limited (often property damage, sometimes vandalism), the government was increasingly willing to treat protest, direct action, speech of support, or even speech referencing possible illegal actions, as grounds for criminal conspiracy, or “terrorism,” or extremely harsh penalties. The legal architecture (AEPA → AETA, broader definitions of what “animal enterprise” means, etc.) expanded these tools. Center for Constitutional Rights +2 Encyclopedia Britannica +2
Muslim / Civil Liberties Cases, Ideological Exclusion, and Post‑9/11 Crackdowns
After 9/11, many Muslim activists, organizations, individuals experienced heightened surveillance, travel restrictions, visa denials, surveillance, sometimes detention. One example: “ideological exclusion” (denying visas to foreign scholars or speakers because of perceived ideology) was revived, challenged in court. The ACLU documented some of these cases. American Civil Liberties Union
Student free speech also came under pressure in multiple cases during this period, especially around anti‑war or anti‑“war on terror” activism. Dress codes, suspension, censorship, or worse. (I could pull more specific examples if needed.)
In sum: by the mid‑2000s, U.S. law and practice had significantly expanded what counts as “actionable” dissent, invoking terms like terrorism or eco‑terrorism, with greater use of surveillance, prosecutions, and harsh sentencing even when no one was physically harmed.
- Student Activists, Occupy, and J20: Scaling Up Policing & Legal Coercion Occupy Wall Street (2011‑2012)
The Occupy movement was broadly nonviolent (though sometimes disruptive), focused on economic inequality, Wall Street, and related issues. Nonetheless, police agencies responded with mass arrests, use of force, surveillance, sometimes “kettling” (surrounding and trapping protesters), overbroad applications of disorderly conduct or trespassing statutes, etc. Al Jazeera +1
For example, a lawsuit filed in 2015 challenged the NYPD’s mass arrests around the first anniversary of Occupy Wall Street, alleging that protesters—including those engaged in expressive speech—were arrested for little or no lawful reason. Occupy
Further, studies/reports noted that NYPD surveillance and monitoring were routine, and that protesters often felt chilled, intimidated, even when not immediately arrested. NYCLU +1
Student Movement, Campus Suppression
Beyond Occupy, student activists during the 2000s and 2010s (anti‑war, climate, racial justice, Palestine solidarity, etc.) frequently faced administrative sanctions, suspension, sometimes arrest, or disruption of campus speech, protest encampments. (Less well documented in some cases than others, but many incidents.)
For example, student protests at universities over tuition, war, or free speech have often led to police involvement, arrests, and prosecutions (or threat thereof) despite First Amendment protections. (I don’t have all examples here in this article, but the pattern is of increasing readiness to treat student dissent as something that must be policed and suppressed rather than accommodated.)
J20 Protestors — Trump’s Inauguration, 2017
On January 20, 2017, during President Trump’s inauguration, thousands of protesters gathered. In a bloc called “Disrupt J20,” many — reportedly over 200 — were arrested. Among them: protesters, legal observers, journalists. Charges included felony rioting, conspiracy to commit property destruction, etc. Some faced potential sentences up to 60 years. Al Jazeera +2 The Independent +2
Key aspects:
Mass arrest tactics and kettling — encirclement of protesters, including those not engaging in property damage or violent acts. p2016.org +1
Collective liability / guilt by association — some defendants were charged not for direct action but for being part of a group; or because of their proximity to or association with protestors alleged to have done property damage. ACLU of DC +2 Al Jazeera +2
Delay, burden, psychological/legal costs — years of litigation, financial costs, possible decades in prison hanging over many defendants. Even where convictions failed or charges were dropped, the process itself imposed a chilling effect. Al Jazeera +2 World Socialist Web Site +2
Ultimately many charges were dropped, some defendants were acquitted. But the case is considered significant: it illustrates that the government is willing to deploy sweeping legal claims and prosecutorial risk to suppress protest, or at least threaten severe consequences. The Nation +4 World Socialist Web Site +4 World Socialist Web Site +4
- Escalation & Present Day: New Targets, Broader Tools
Over time, suppression has broadened in scope, tone, and technique. Here are ways the shift has deepened, particularly affecting more mainstream political speech, Palestinians, comedians, students, and Democrats.
Legal and Legislative Expansion
Laws like AETA, plus statutes related to domestic terrorism, material support statutes, conspiracy laws, immigration statutes (e.g. deportation laws, visa/entry laws) have increasingly been used or threatened to punish speech, association, or protest— not just violent acts.
The definitions of terrorism or “support for terrorism” have become broader, sometimes vague. That allows more speech to be caught in prosecutorial risk.
Policing, Surveillance, and Pre‑Emption
Pre‑emptive policing: protest permits denied, protests surveilled heavily, preemptively dispersed, with risk of arrest even when no crime yet committed.
Use of tactics like kettling; mass arrests; charging attendees who are merely present; failure to clearly warn or discriminate between those acting peacefully versus violent actors.
Surveillance of speech and organizations, sometimes without probable cause; infiltration, informants, perhaps provocateurs.
Targeting of Political Speech & Partisanship
Whereas earlier suppression focused more on radical or fringe activists (animal rights, environmental direct action, etc.), increasingly the targets include more mainstream political criticism: Palestinians protesters, comedians who mock political power, academics, Democrats critical of certain policies, etc.
In some cases, the government is using foreign policy, counterterrorism, or immigration tools to silence critics. Examples: attempts to deport or restrict speech of foreign students or activists involved in campus protests about Palestine.
Also, a shift in public rhetoric: labeling dissenters as “antisemitic,” “terrorists,” or aligning protests with violent or extremist ideologies, sometimes irrespective of actual conduct. That rhetorical framing amplifies legal and social pressure to suppress such speech.
Examples & Incidents
Some recent or ongoing cases that reflect this suppressive arc:
Palestinian Activists on Campus: Cases where students or faculty who protest or speak in favor of Palestinian rights face administrative penalties, investigations, or worse. Some are threatened with visa revocation or deportation. (For example, a recent case: Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University student, was arrested in 2025 for protest, with attempts to deport him under foreign policy statutes. The Washington Post )
Comedians, Media Figures: While free speech protections are stronger for media and comedy, there is increasing pressure via public/rhetorical attack, social media campaigns, lawsuits or threats, regulatory pressures (broadcast rules, etc.), perhaps also via legislative threats (e.g. policies around “misinformation,” “hate speech,” etc.).
Democrats / Political Opponents: The current political climate sees rhetoric from government and allied forces characterizing certain partisan opposition voices as disloyal, as spreaders of lies, or even as threats to national security. In some states, laws have been passed or proposed that limit protest, speech, or academic expression.
- Continuities: What’s the Same, What Has Intensified
Tracking from the SHAC / Green Scare era through Occupy, the J20 case, into more recent suppressions, certain patterns recur—and several intensify.
Pattern Early Cases (1990s‑2000s) Later Cases / Today Speech or association punished even when no physical harm or violence Yes — e.g. SHAC convictions for websites posting, or associating with protestors. Encyclopedia Britannica +1 Yes — e.g. threatened deportations, administrative discipline, charges for presence or association (J20, campus Palestinians) Use of conspiracy / collective liability Yes — in Green Scare, SHAC, ELF/ALF cases. CrimethInc. +2 Wikipedia +2 Yes — e.g. J20, other protest cases where being part of a bloc or being a legal observer got you in trouble Use of terrorism / extremist framing / “eco‑terrorism,” etc. Early in the 2000s, environmental/animal rights cases were labeled “domestic terror” or “eco‑terror.” Encyclopedia Britannica +1 Yes — more mainstream speech (e.g. pro‑Palestinian, or critical of government) is being subjected to speech‑deemed “terrorist,” or “hate speech,” or some form of national security threat; the rhetoric is more prep for suppression Heavy policing, surveillance, preemption Yes — infiltration, surveillance, grand juries in Green Scare; policing of protests in Occupy. The Guardian +1 Increasingly so — campus investigations, social media monitoring, use of law enforcement to disrupt protests before they reach scale Legal costs, chilling effect even when prosecutions fail Yes — SHAC 7’s sentences; many ELF/ALF trials; costs of defense, fear among activists. Center for Constitutional Rights +1 Yes — e.g. J20 defendants even if acquitted, they suffered years of legal burden; campus activists may self‑censor; some public figures avoid certain topics.
Recent Cases (2020‑2025): Newer Flashpoints in Free Speech Suppression
Below are several emblematic cases and legislative/administrative developments that illustrate how suppression of dissent, especially in academia, activism, and political expression, has intensified in recent years. Many of these cases follow the same patterns as earlier ones (surveillance, threat of law enforcement / immigration / funding penalties, collective penalties, chilling effects).
A) Key Individual Cases
Mahmoud Khalil (2025)
Khalil, a lawful permanent U.S. resident and Columbia University alumnus/student, was arrested by ICE (Immigration & Customs Enforcement) on March 8, 2025. This followed his involvement in pro‑Palestinian protests / encampments at Columbia. The Guardian +4 Wikipedia +4 Wikipedia +4
The government alleged that his activism harmed U.S. foreign policy, that his presence was adverse to it. They revoked or moved to revoke his green card (permanent resident status), and detained him for 104 days. Al Jazeera +3 Wikipedia +3 Reuters +3
A federal judge ordered his release, finding that the government had not shown he was a flight risk or danger, and that much of the evidence was tenuous. Reuters +1
The case has had a chilling effect: students (particularly international students) have expressed fear about speaking out, doing encampments, protest actions; worried about visa safety, immigration status, etc. CNN +1
Mohsen Mahdawi (2025)
A co‑founder of Columbia University’s Palestinian Student Union, a permanent U.S. resident, arrested by ICE while attending a naturalization interview. His arrest was connected with his activism around Palestine. Wikipedia +2 Politico +2
He's been released on bond in some cases; legal challenges are underway. Supporters say his detention was retaliatory for speech / organizing rather than for criminal acts. The Washington Post +1
University Administrative Sanctions / Suspensions of Student Protestors
Various universities have suspended or otherwise disciplined students for nonviolent pro‑Palestinian protests. For example, at NYU, library sit‑ins led to one‑yr suspensions. Al Jazeera
The University of Minnesota likewise has moved to impose suspensions and hefty financial penalties (alleged damages) on some students who occupied a building renamed after a protester killed in Gaza. Al Jazeera
Freezing Federal Grants / Funding Pressures
In 2025, the Trump administration froze or attempted to freeze federal research grants to UCLA and other schools over what it said were failures to address antisemitism in pro‑Palestinian protests. A judge has ordered restoration of over $500 million in frozen grants. Reuters
UC students, professors, staff, etc., have sued the government, arguing that the withholding/freeze is a threat to academic freedom and free speech. AP News
Executive Orders Targeting Campus Speech / Monitoring Alien Students
Executive Order 14188 (2025) mandates that executive agencies report on anti‑Semitism, and includes obligations to review and report on activities by “alien students and staff.” Critics see this as a tool to monitor, pressure, possibly sanction foreign students for speech / protest. Wikipedia
Another order, 14161, prohibits noncitizens from expressing a “hostile attitude” towards U.S. citizens, culture, government, etc., under penalty of visa/immigration consequences. Criticism is that these orders violate First Amendment rights and are being used to target student protestors, especially those associated with Palestine. Wikipedia +2 Economy +2
B) Legislative & Policy Developments
Anti‑protest legislative bills There has been a proliferation of bills (state and federal) aimed at punishing protestors more harshly, restricting mask/disguise at protests, limiting protests near certain facilities, or removing eligibility for federal aid or loan forgiveness for student protestors. Many introduced in response to pro‑Palestinian protests and campus action. The Guardian +1
Expanded use of immigration law to punish speech The recent cases (Khalil, Mahdawi, etc.) show that immigration status (student visa, green card) is being threatened or revoked in response to speech and protest, even when no charges of violence or property destruction are involved. This mirrors earlier use of “material support” or “terrorism” statutes for non‑violent speech/association.
How These Follow the Earlier Thread
Here’s how these recent events connect back to earlier instances (e.g. Green Scare, Occupy, J20, student activism in 2000s), showing similarities and intensifications.
Earlier Pattern Recent Echoes / Intensification Collective / Associative Liability (being punished for association, protest membership, or organizing) In recent cases, being part of a protest encampment (even non‑violent), or being a student leader, is sufficient to trigger severe immigration or administrative consequences, even if not directly involved in illegal acts. (E.g. Khalil & Mahdawi) Legal or Administrative Tools beyond Criminal Law Immigrations laws, visa revocation, suspensions, funding freezes, federal grants withheld — similar to how earlier suppression used conspiracy, terrorism statutes, eco‑terrorism, etc. Chilling Effect on Speech Students report fear of speaking, being visible, posting online, doing protest actions. International students especially vulnerable. Similar to how earlier animal rights or environmental activists worried about speaking openly. Labeling / Framing as Extremism, Foreign Policy Threat, Terrorism, etc. The government in recent cases labels pro‑Palestinian activism as harmful to U.S. foreign policy, possibly aligned with extremist groups; uses “antisemitism,” “terrorism,” “hostile attitude” rhetoric. This mirrors the earlier use of “terrorism / extremist environmentalism / eco‑terrorism" etc. Mass / State‑Level or Institutional Responses Laws, executive orders targeting alien students, monitoring, threatening universities’ funding; similar to how in Occupy large institutional responses occurred (police, mass arrests), and in Green Scare, large federal investigations.
(yes this was written by chat gpt)
they're dabbing on us