Activism should not be a shield for illegal acts
Glenn Greenwald is missing the point of the latest EO from the Trump White House because he wants to avoid the criminal element within the pro-Palestine movement
On Jan. 19 a ceasefire went into effect in Gaza between the Israeli military and security forces on the one hand and the enclave’s Hamas rulers and various partners on the other. But one party is continuing the “fight” regardless of any ceasefires: The worldwide pro-Palestine activism movement. Students at Cornell University found this out recently when they found the spray painted statue of school co-founder Andrew Dickson White on the university quad on Jan. 21. At Columbia University there was an even more daring act on Jan. 29: Activists from a group called “Unity of Field” poured cement down toilets at a university building in memory of the Palestinian girl Hind Rajab killed in 2024, allegedly by the IDF.
These acts, if committed by a US resident alien, would constitute grounds for deportation under the latest White House executive order by President Trump even if the defendant held legal immigration status. But renowned journalist Glenn Greenwald has rolled out the pro forma argument that this is an attack on the First Amendment, but he’s totally wrong. If enforced appropriately to its letter, this has nothing to do with the First Amendment or even non-protected speech such as disruption of speaking events. Rather it refers to illegal (read: criminal) activities.
In November 2023, barely a month into the war, I wrote an open letter to Greenwald warning him that the pro-Palestine movement’s activities frequently cross the bounds of free speech into criminal acts of violence against people or property. I wasn’t expecting a response, and sadly I’ve been proven correct. What Greenwald has been right to criticise is that while we all have an equal right to free speech under the Constitution, it is common for people to assert those rights in a self-serving manner only when it comes to speech they approve. But the EO does not do that. I sincerely approve - nay, urge - you to still crochet a giant keffiyeh checked quilt to spread across your local dog park green if you think that will help Palestinians while you take Snaggles for a doo doo (see below, yes that could be your dog’s too!).
The order specifically uses the following language:
Sec. 2. Policy. It shall be the policy of the United States to combat anti-Semitism vigorously, using all available and appropriate legal tools, to prosecute, remove, or otherwise hold to account the perpetrators of unlawful anti-Semitic harassment and violence.
In Sec. 3e the order also outlines how agencies shall act to remove (deport) aliens that are found to be in violation of the law through acts of intimidation or harassment. There is nothing unconstitutional about that, and as a former civil liberties attorney and activist Greenwald should be able to explain that to his audience which may include some of the same activists whose actions may be affected by the EO. Yes, advocacy for a cause is covered under the First Amendment regardless of its popularity or acceptance by the general public, but only so long as it can be defined as speech.