Note: These remarks were made during a panel discussion entitled “The Attack: Our First Amendment Rights” which was sponsored by the Michigan Coalition for Human Rights (MCHR) on Thursday June 26, 2025. The event was held during the MCHR annual meeting. Other panelists were Atty. Julie Hurwitz, partner at Goodman, Hurwitz and James P.C., who discussed the current threats to fundamental constitutional law in the United States in this period. Atty. Syeda Davidson, Senior Staff Atty. for the ACLU of Michigan, reviewed some of the legal work being done by the organization to protect civil rights and first amendment guarantees. The panel was chaired by MCHR Board President Atty. Cary McGehee. MCHR’s annual report was delivered by Board Chair Rev. Tia Taylor.
By Abayomi Azikiwe
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
These words from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution have been open for interpretation for many years.
In recent months since the inauguration of Donald Trump as the 47th president of the U.S., a wave of arbitrary executive orders and administrative denials have characterized this presidency. Trump has ordered the arrest and deportation of people who have criticized U.S. domestic and foreign policy. The president has refused to abide by federal court orders and called for the impeachment of judges that rule against his wishes.
Within the history of the U.S. there are innumerable instances of suppression of freedom of speech and assembly. During the period of World War I, thousands of people were arrested and deported by the federal government due to their opposition to the U.S. involvement in the conflagration.
These arrests and prosecutions were carried out under the Espionage Act and Sedition Act of 1917-1918. The legislation was designed to suppress the publication and distribution of literature and the gathering of people in opposition to the war.
After the war in 1919, another series of raids and arrests were made by then Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer where people were charged with sedition and other serious crimes under federal law. The specter of communism in the wake of the Russian Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 created fear within officialdom.
Two major Supreme Court decisions related to First Amendment rights were delivered in this period of repression in the aftermath of the First World War. These cases shed tremendous light on the thinking of the Supreme Court during this period, they are:
“Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 39 S.Ct. 247, 63 L.Ed.2d. (1919): Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes stated in this case his famous aphorism about ‘falsely shouting fire in a theatre’ and set forth a ‘clear and present danger test’ to judge whether speech is protected by the First Amendment. ‘The question,’ he wrote, ‘is whether the words are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has the right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree.’ The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions of the defendants for conspiring to violate certain federal statutes by attempting to incite insubordination in the armed forces and interfere with recruitment and enlistment. During wartime, the defendants mailed to new recruits and enlisted men leaflets that compared military conscription to involuntary servitude and urged them to assert constitutional rights.”
“Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357 (1927): Since Anita Whitney did not base her defense on the First Amendment, the Supreme Court, by a 7 to 2 decision, upheld her conviction of being found guilty under the California’s 1919 Criminal Syndicalism Act for allegedly helping to establish the Communist Labor Party, a group the state argued taught the violent overthrow of government.”
Freedom of Speech in the Current Period
Many may ask: What do two Supreme Court decisions, one of which was rendered over a century ago, have to do with the contemporary situation where the Trump administration is actively targeting and persecuting people for exercising critical speech? These issues have come to the fore since the beginning of the Al Aqsa Flood of October 7, 2023 in Palestine.
At present, with the escalation of tensions within the regions of Eastern Europe and West Asia could very well prompt another World War. The wars in Ukraine and the genocide in Palestine has elevated the threat of global conflict.
The Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that his government would eliminate Hamas and the other resistance forces in Gaza. This position was backed by the administration of President Joe Biden and has continued through Trump.
On the college campuses since the fall of 2023, the administrations at the aegis of two presidents, have engaged in a crackdown on those who hold views that are sympathetic to the Palestinian people. Several university presidents were forced out of their positions because they did not provide the answers that certain members of Congress had wanted.
Soon enough, students on more than 100 campuses established Palestine solidarity encampments oftentimes under the labels of “Free University for Gaza.” These encampments, building occupations, rallies, teach-ins and marches were attacked by the administration along with numerous members of Congress and the corporate media.
These encampments and occupations were aimed at pressuring the higher educational institutions to disclose and divest their financial holding with the State of Israel. In some instances, colleges and universities were willing to debate and remedy these issues. However, the overwhelming majority of higher educational institutions approached the demonstrations in a hostile fashion.
Students, staff and faculty members were arrested without cause while others faced unjust terminations. The White House and many members of Congress denounced the protests as antisemitic. Nonetheless, the reality is that more than 55,000 Palestinians have been killed since October 7, 2023 with an additional 100,000 injured. Everyone living in the Gaza Strip has been dislocated, suffering from hunger, thirst and lack of effective medical care. Hospitals, schools, religious institutions and neighborhoods have been bombed out of existence.
As human rights activists we have an obligation to speak out against the foreign policy of the U.S. which is facilitating genocide in Gaza and the widening of the conflict throughout the region from Palestine to Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Yemen and now Iran. These genocidal onslaughts and regional wars also represent a serious threat to the working people of the U.S. since it is our tax dollars that fund the occupation of Palestine and other military conflagrations throughout West Asia.
We Must Fight the Burgeoning Threat of Fascism
The increasing military attacks against Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Iran are coinciding with the deliberate erosion of the civil rights and civil liberties of the people of the United States. These rights were won through at least 160 years of struggle.
If we do not organize and mobilize the people, the Trump administration and its allies in Congress will indeed reverse all of the gains related to labor, civil and human rights made in the U.S. periodically since the Civil War. The administration’s attack on “birthright citizenship” based upon the 14th Amendment adopted by Congress in 1868, is a threat not only to immigrants. Since the passage of the 14th Amendment was designed ostensibly to make African Americans full citizens of the U.S., their status could very well be impacted by the imperatives of the Trump administration.
On a local level we must participate in the mass demonstrations which have occurred since April 5. Millions have come out to demand the halt to the fascist threat.
Local, state and federal elected officials should pass resolutions and take legal actions to protect the residents of their areas. Politicians must not kowtow to the Republican MAGA interests by remaining silent as the authoritarian policies take effect.
So, to answer the question posed in the title of this talk, we will need more than the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to stave off the current fascist threat. Silence and indifference will not protect us from the repression imposed by the Trump White House. As conscious activists we should utilize all of our resources to confront the present danger.
Be the first to comment