Tonight in Your Rights: The 'Global Censorship-Industrial Complex'

Donald Trump's government chills speech internationally while pointing the finger at advocacy groups and their leaders.

Donald Trump and Marco Rubio (Photo by SAUL LOEB / AFP)

Resist the climate of censorship. Fight back against bullies.

Support journalism that’s cool-headed — but refuses to be chilled.

Shortly before Christmas Eve, the government that tried to deport student activists en masse for their speech, punished major law firms for the views of their attorneys and used state power to bring media conglomerates to heel over comedians’ jokes announced their latest attack on the First Amendment.

Without a trace of irony, Secretary of State Marco Rubio titled it: “Announcement of Actions to Combat the Global Censorship-Industrial Complex.”

As defined by Rubio, the global censorship-industrial complex refers to anti-hate watchdogs campaigning social media companies and international regulatory bodies to enforce more responsible content moderation. Some of the targeted people and groups monitor the proliferation of racism, antisemitism, and foreign disinformation online and publicly report where Big Tech giants have been falling short or negligent.

On the day that Trump’s Justice Department raided the home of a Washington Post journalist, the little-noticed court battle that played out during the holidays over that effort provides a case study of the government’s spin rebranding an assault on First Amendment freedoms.

‘Fight, fight, fight’

In an extended video interview, the Center for Countering Digital Hate’s CEO Imran Ahmed, a green card holder with a U.S. citizen wife and daughter, recounted how he learned that he had been targeted through a text message and filed his lawsuit on Christmas Eve.

“My wife came down to my desk where I was working on calls and left me a Post-It note that said, ‘I love you, f—- these people,’” Ahmed told All Rise News. “And then, as I was leaving, she whispered into my ear, ‘fight, fight, fight,’ which was called President Trump's slogan after the Butler shooting.”

Ahmed’s counteroffensive met with early success: On Christmas, a federal judge in New York granted a temporary restraining order shielding Ahmed, and a separate federal judge extended the ruling through March.

“In the world of politics and the world of X, certainly, whatever nonsense you spout — especially if you are the owner of the platform and you’ve instructed your engineers to make you the loudest voice on it — the loudest voice wins,” Ahmed said. “But in the courts, facts still matter. Justice still matters. And I have confidence that when it’s a fact fight, we’re going to win.”

‘He sued the mirror’

Citing his previous battle with Elon Musk, Ahmed views his targeting as the government’s “big favor for Big Tech.”

The Center for Countering Digital Hate drew a lawsuit from X Corp after issuing a widely heralded report finding that anti-Black hate tripled after Musk took over Twitter and antisemitic posts also proliferated on the platform. The New York Times ran a story on the front page of its business section on the platform’s “unprecedented” explosion of hate speech.

“Our research essentially held up a mirror to [Musk] and his platform and his business decisions,” Ahmed said. “And he, instead of what normal people do when they look in the mirror and don't like the reflection — which is go for a haircut, brush their teeth, you sort of smarten up a bit, do up their tie — he sued the mirror.”

Senior U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer dismissed the lawsuit and ordered Musk to pay the group’s legal fees.

Musk’s public comments show that he held a grudge.

After Rubio announced government actions targeting Ahmed and his group, Musk treated it as a personal Christmas president.

“This is so great,” the self-professed free speech advocate wrote.

‘Proof of concept’

Faced with the virtual certainty that Trump’s government would try to take him from his wife and daughter on Christmas Eve, Ahmed said that he was never quaking in fear.

“I don't want to pretend I was terribly scared and panicked,” Ahmed said. “The truth is I wasn't.”

Rubio’s previous attempts to use the machinery of the State Department to try to deport student activists based on speech collapsed in spectacular fashion, and one judge compared the effort to the “Red Scare.” In those cases, the government had made a pretense of asserting a national security interest against pro-Palestinian protesters. Federal judges rejected those rationales, but any national security interest is entirely absent in Ahmed’s case.

Backed by an all-star legal team — including E. Jean Carroll’s lead attorney Roberta Kaplan, former Ambassador Norm Eisen, and the American Civil Liberties Union — Ahmed had faith in the system.

“I have faith in the First Amendment, and I have faith in the courts,” Ahmed said.

The Center for Countering Digital Hate and their supporters took it as evidence that they were making a difference.

“One of my funders said, ‘Imran, this is proof of concept,’ and they're right,” Ahmed said.

Watch the full interview with Imran Ahmed on the All Rise News playlist on Legal AF.

Today in the First Amendment

Trump’s FBI executed a search warrant on a Washington Post reporter’s home, which was denounced by most advocacy groups as a sharp escalation in attacks on press freedom.

Reporter Hannah Natanson, who gained a reputation as the Post’s “federal government whisperer,” reportedly has been informed that she is not the target of the investigation. Authorities justified the search by claiming it was necessary to investigate the criminal case of Aurelio Perez-Lugones, a government contractor charged with mishandling top-secret information.

As noted by Politico, the criminal complaint against Perez-Lugones makes no reference to disseminating information to the press. Previous Justice Departments avoided involving a journalist in a government investigation into the improper handling or disclosure of national defense information, but the FBI here seized Natanson’s phone, two laptops and a Garmin watch.

The Columbia University-based Knight First Amendment Institute’s executive director Jameel Jaffer noted in a statement that searching “newsrooms and journalists are the hallmarks of illiberal regimes”:

“Any search targeting a journalist warrants intense scrutiny because these kinds of searches can deter and impede reporting that is vital to our democracy. Attorney General Bondi has weakened guidelines that were intended to protect the freedom of the press, but there are still important legal limits, including constitutional ones, on the government’s authority to use subpoenas, court orders, and search warrants to obtain information from journalists. The Justice Department should explain publicly why it believes this search was necessary and legally permissible, and Congress and the courts should scrutinize that explanation carefully.

Read the Washington Post’s coverage here.

That’s not even the only alarming intrusion into press freedom today.

• “Stars and Stripes job applicants are asked if they back Trump policies”: The partly Pentagon-funded newspaper was established by Congress to have editorial independence, but the Washington Post on Wednesday reported a change in the masthead’s direction.

• As the people of Iran bravely protest for their freedom, at grave personal risk, one of Trump’s biggest loyalists cut off what was once a key hub of uncensored information in that country.

  • Kari Lake, the two-time failed MAGA politician, election denialist and Trump senior advisor to the U.S. Agency for Global Media, “blocked Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty from using a USAGM transmitter in Kuwait to broadcast news and protest updates into Iran amid the Islamic Republic's government-induced internet blackout,” according to Oliver Darcy’s Status newsletter.

Look out for more interviews with First Amendment experts on these recent developments later in the week.