Supporters of Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil chained themselves to a fence at Columbia University in New York on 2 April 2025, in a dramatic protest. This image captures the growing tension around free speech and the Palestinian cause.
The Irony of Free Speech Champions
Mehdi Hasan, editor-in-chief and CEO of Zeteo, writes that it was once an article of faith that even those who speak words we disagree with deserve protection. But regarding Palestine, that is now not true. He recalls the Satanic Verses controversy, the 'Je suis Charlie' movement, and constant invocations of Voltaire and Orwell. The great irony of our age, he argues, is that many politicians who spent years anointing themselves as champions of free speech have become its most enthusiastic enemies when the subject turns to one issue: Palestine.
For decades, Western governments lectured the world about liberal values. They declared freedom of expression the hallmark of a liberal democratic society. Protest was deemed patriotic while the right to offend was considered sacred. Then came Gaza. Suddenly, the principles that were once non-negotiable became highly negotiable.
Repression in Britain
In Britain, where Hasan was born and raised, the government proscribed the direct action group Palestine Action as a terrorist organization, with the shameful support of 385 votes in parliament from across the political spectrum. Since then, priests, elderly people, and disabled individuals have been grabbed by the police for holding signs that simply said, 'I oppose genocide; I support Palestine Action.' Their real crime was daring to speak out against a UK-enabled genocide.
Last week, the British state took another extraordinary step in its campaign of repression against pro-Palestine figures, blocking US commentators Cenk Uygur and Hasan Piker from entering the UK. The Home Office did not explain its reasoning, simply saying their presence in the UK was not 'conducive to the public good.' The Guardian reported that it was 'understood that both men have been blocked because of concerns that they could exacerbate antisemitism.'
The actions are opaque, but the message is unmistakable: there are political causes the British establishment welcomes and those it fears. This isn't even about Uygur or Piker's views. Whether one agrees with everything either man has ever said is irrelevant. Piker, for example, referred to some Orthodox Jews as 'inbred' and once said the US 'deserved' 9/11, both offensive comments for which he has since expressed regret. Defending free speech is most crucial when that speech is controversial. You cannot show your support for free expression only by defending opinions you already share.
Alarming Situation in the US
In the US, where Hasan now lives and votes, the situation is even more alarming. The Trump administration's targeting of pro-Palestinian voices and, in particular, foreign students should be seen as one of the most severe assaults on free expression in modern American history. Even a rightwing, Ronald Reagan-appointed judge denounced the crackdown on student protesters as a 'full-throated assault on the first amendment across the board under the cover of an unconstitutionally broad definition of antisemitism.'
Foreign students such as Mahmoud Khalil and Rümeysa Öztürk have found themselves investigated, arrested, and detained, not for acts of violence but for their speech. Öztürk's 'crime' was co-authoring an op-ed in her student newspaper calling for Tufts University to divest from companies connected to Israel.
This assault on free speech is not confined to non-citizens. On Wednesday, Republican congressman Randy Fine said Piker, a US citizen by birth, 'shouldn't be allowed into America' and called him a 'terrorist.' Congress keeps proposing and passing resolutions designed to stifle criticism of Israel. At the state level, laws opposing the boycott of Israel are spreading fast. Universities have come under massive pressure from politicians, donors, and lobbying groups to punish pro-Palestine protesters. Careers have been destroyed. Events have been cancelled. Speakers have been disinvited. Academics have been targeted. Journalists have been smeared.
How Can This Be Justified?
Hasan asks how any of this can be justified in a democracy. No foreign government should be granted immunity from criticism. Not China. Not Saudi Arabia. Not Israel. Yet the self-proclaimed Jewish state occupies a uniquely and weirdly protected place in our political discourse. Criticism that would be considered routine in any other context – don't bomb hospitals! Don't kill kids! – is cynically rebranded as anti-Jewish bigotry.
This goes far beyond mere censorship. It is an open and ongoing assault on liberal democracy itself. A society that cannot honestly debate government policy – be it domestic or foreign – cannot meaningfully govern itself. A society that punishes dissent on one issue only emboldens those authoritarians who want to crack down on every issue. The speech restrictions justified against one group are always, inevitably, ultimately, applied to other groups.
The Struggle at Home and Abroad
Some of Hasan's liberal friends have urged the left to stop obsessing over distant foreign wars and stop lambasting the Democratic and Labour parties for their complicity in war crimes. They want focus on the very real threat from rising authoritarianism in the US and the UK. But the opposition to the destruction of Gaza – and now also Iran and Lebanon – cannot be separated from the defence of democratic freedoms at home. They are part and parcel of the same struggle.
A genocide abroad is helping usher in fascism at home. Poll after poll shows the UK and US publics have switched their support from the Israelis to the Palestinians. The response from the pro-Israel people in power, having seen that they cannot win the argument on Palestine, is to now prevent the argument from happening.
The question confronting Britain and the US, therefore, is no longer whether free speech is under attack. The evidence is in front of our eyes. The question now is whether citizens of these two great democracies, both of which Hasan calls home, will continue to tolerate the erosion of liberties that previous generations – from the Levellers and the Chartists in the UK to the abolitionists and the civil rights movement in the US – fought so hard to secure. Because once we give our governments the power to decide which political opinions are acceptable, why would you assume that they will stop at Palestine?
