Attacks on Universities over Gaza Protests Threaten Students’ Free Speech
This guest post does not necessarily reflect the views or expertise of Human Rights First. It is part of a partnership between UCLA Law and Human Rights First, where UCLA Law students use the new Democracy Watch tracker to analyze legislative threats to democracy
___________________________________________________________________________________
By Andrew Beale
A new Department of Justice task force announced in mid-March aims to prosecute Hamas operatives involved in the Oct. 7 attacks—and college students who protest against Israel. The task force, known as “Joint Task Force October 7” or JTF 10-7, is opening the door to a dangerous precedent: attacking freedom of speech and expression by conflating overseas militants armed with rockets with students armed with protest signs. It’s the latest escalation in a troubling trend of legislation and executive orders targeting long-established First Amendment rights.
According to data collected by our Democracy Watch legislation tracker, at least 110 bills targeting First Amendment rights have been introduced in state legislatures around the country since the beginning of the year. In addition, twelve federal bills attacking freedom of speech have been introduced in Congress, six in the House and six in the Senate.
Federal bills aiming to tamp down on political expression and activity cover a broad range of subjects, from immigration activism to “woke investing.” For example, the Transnational Criminal Organization Illicit Spotter Prevention and Elimination Act (S 50) threatens up to ten years in federal prison for any person who reveals the location of immigration agents. The text of the proposed bill provides “Any person who knowingly transmits, by any means, to another person the location, movement, or activities of any Federal, State, local, or tribal law enforcement agency with the intent to further a Federal crime relating to United States immigration, customs, controlled substances, agriculture, monetary instruments, or other border controls shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.”
As written, this bill appears to cover the activity of anti-ICE protest groups. These organizations have been particularly active in the Los Angeles area, where Chicano activists have mobilized to defend their communities from overzealous immigration enforcement. Activists engage in community patrols, warning residents of the presence of ICE or other immigration-enforcement agents. Under the bill, they could face up to ten years in prison for posting locations of spotted ICE agents to social media platforms.
Worryingly, the language is so broad that it could potentially allow federal prosecutors to bring cases against journalists broadcasting live reports about immigration raids. Though journalists could certainly argue that reporting the news does not show “intent to further a Federal crime,” prosecutors have not always respected the freedom of the press. The US Press Freedom Tracker reports that journalists were arrested or charged with crimes 49 times in 2024. Though many of these cases were dropped, even a brief detention can significantly disrupt newsgathering and has the effect of chilling aggressive reporting.
Numerous state-level bills aim to disrupt the First Amendment right to protest. A bill introduced last month in Texas would essentially make anyone wearing a mask at a protest part of a conspiracy with anyone at the same protest who commits a crime. The bill, SB 2876, would apply to anyone convicted of a crime while wearing a mask at a protest that has been declared a riot. It would increase the criminal penalties to equal the penalties of the most-severe crime committed at the protest. For example, if an individual is convicted of disorderly conduct (a class-C misdemeanor in Texas) and someone else at the same protest is convicted of assault on an officer, the person convicted of disorderly conduct would face the same penalty as the person convicted of assault on an officer, even if the two didn’t know each other or ever communicate in any way. This would obviously discourage law-abiding citizens from attending protests out of fear that any small mistake could entail bottomless criminal liability.
This proposed bill violates fundamental principles of criminal law long thought to be critical to a democratic society, including proportionality of punishment and the assignment of culpability based on blameworthiness. Conspiracy laws have long been criticized for threatening First Amendment rights, but this bill goes a step further, removing the requirement of an agreement to commit a crime.
A Senate resolution in Florida is directly relevant to the implementation of JTF 10-7, and could provide support for bringing terrorism prosecutions against pro-Palestine student protesters. The resolution, titled “A resolution condemning Students for Justice in Palestine for its support of foreign terrorist organizations and antisemitic actions” (S. 1684) bears no force of law and would merely express the opinion of Florida state legislators, but the symbolic weight of the resolution goes much further. S. 1684 would adopt as the official position of the Florida Senate that “the [pro-Palestine] demonstrations, in effect, provide material support to Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, two organizations officially designated as Foreign Terrorist Organizations by the United States Department of State.”
Though the passage of this resolution has no direct bearing on federal law, it could encourage federal prosecutors to bring terrorism cases against peaceful protesters. Even if prosecutors did not act against pro-Palestine students, it could discourage those concerned about Israel’s actions in Gaza from expressing their opinions publicly.
High-profile Executive Branch actions have also aimed at discouraging or even criminalizing pro-Palestine protest and other causes that challenge the administration. Most famously, Columbia student activist and green card holder Mahmoud Khalil was detained by ICE and is currently fighting deportation from inside a Louisiana detention center. Immigration authorities have offered shifting explanations for his detention, all of which are related to his pro-Palestine activism. Other student activists are facing deportation for pro-Palestine speech and the federal government is demanding universities hand over the names and nationalities of student protesters. Students targeted include Yunseo Chung, a 21-year-old Columbia student and green card holder. Human Rights First is representing Chung in a lawsuit to stop the administration from deporting her for attending pro-Palestine protests.
The attack on protesters’ right to free speech is bipartisan, gaining support on both sides of the aisle. “If [Khalil] broke the law, he should be deported,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told the New York Times. There is no allegation that Khalil broke any laws, but an immigration judge has ordered him deported anyway. Anti-free speech bills at the state and federal level could make it easier to deport students like Khalil, as well as target US citizens speaking up against government actions.
The initial crackdowns on campus encampments nationwide happened in red states and blue states, under Democrat and Republican mayors and governors. Nor is this a new phenomenon: Palestinian academics like Steven Salaita have long faced repression for pro-Palestine speech.
In the months following the Oct. 7 attacks, the crackdown on first amendment speech intensified, gaining widespread support among political leaders of both parties at the federal level and in all 50 states. But the assault on First Amendment activity goes far beyond pro-Palestine speech, reaching into diverse subject matter such as diversity initiatives (banned earlier this month in Georgia schools and colleges) and LGBT rights (a Tennessee bill aiming to bar the display of Pride flags in government buildings).
First Amendment rights, including the right to protest, are critical to our system of government. A democracy is simply not a democracy if the populace is not free to express objections to government actions. Federal and state actions aimed at criminalizing free expression have no place in our democracy, and these bills and executive actions chip away at Americans’ ability to meaningfully participate in democracy.
Bio: Andrew Beale is a law student at UCLA School of Law. Prior to law school, he worked as a journalist covering topics including the criminal justice system, the Israel/Palestine conflict and immigration. He holds a Bachelor’s from the University of New Mexico and a Master’s of Journalism from UC Berkeley.
