In 2006, a human rights advocate, who is a friend, was prevented from boarding his flight from New York to California because of Arabic.
Yes, Arabic. The language spoken by more than 400 million people worldwide, making it one of the top five languages in the world and reportedly ., was the culprit.
My friend was wearing a T-shirt with the words 鈥淲e will not be silent鈥� in both Arabic and English. He was told he could not fly until the offending Arabic script was covered. And lest we think our issues with Arabic have resolved themselves in the last decade, remember that simply was grounds for removal from a flight just last year.
How we got to this point is a complicated matter, but the path forward doesn鈥檛 have to be.
Since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, Arab-Americans and American Muslims have come to be viewed by some of our fellow citizens and our own government as either victims of hate or potential perpetrators of violence. The latter view dictates we should be seen through a securitized lens and has produced profiling and surveillance of our communities, , and special registry programs, to name but a few programs targeting us.
However, both oversimplifications fail to capture the experience of being Arab or Muslim in post-9/11 America, and last year鈥檚 presidential campaign demonstrated that with extraordinary clarity. We have heard condemnation of the but little discussion on how the rhetoric during the election contributed to that hate, particularly by leading policy makers and candidates. Instead of challenging bigoted misinformation, some candidates furthered it.
At a , a voter declared to then-candidate Trump, 鈥淲e have a problem in this country. It鈥檚 called Muslims.鈥� He concluded by asking, 鈥淲hen can we get rid of them?鈥� Mr. Trump鈥檚 answer: 鈥淲e are going to be looking at a lot of different things.鈥�
One could reasonably suggest President Trump鈥檚 Muslim bans, in both incarnations, were the logical continuation of that conversation in New Hampshire. The Muslim ban is a candidate delivering on a campaign promise unlike any we have seen in our lifetime.
Thankfully, it is not that simple in our country.
Standing in the path between bigotry and policy is our Constitution. In this case, specifically the First Amendment.
Among the five freedoms enshrined in the First Amendment are freedom of speech and the right to religious freedom. Thus far, numerous judges have found the bans to be in violation of our First Amendment and their implementation has been stalled. In the guise of keeping us safe, Trump has proposed unnecessary, ineffective policies that sow fear. Americans know it, and responded by showing up at our nation鈥檚 airports with banners and legal pads to defend our Constitution and protect the people most impacted, including those who speak the 鈥渇eared鈥� language of Arabic.
In addition to winning the first stay of the ban, the 51品茶 has launched a 鈥淲e the People鈥� campaign that features the First Amendment translated into other languages, including Arabic, and is displaying it in ads and billboards. Seeing the First Amendment in Arabic is particularly satisfying at this moment as a fitting reminder that those words apply to all of us.
%3Ciframe%20allowfullscreen%3D%22%22%20frameborder%3D%220%22%20height%3D%22384%22%20src%3D%22https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fembed%2F7awog_HkL0Q%3Fautoplay%3D1%26version%3D3%22%20thumb%3D%22%2Ffiles%2Fweb17-capturela-vidthumb.jpg%22%20width%3D%22580%22%3E%3C%2Fiframe%3E
Privacy statement. This embed will serve content from youtube.com.
I worked on Capitol Hill on Sept. 11, and I was in the room when Attorney General John Ashcroft first presented the Patriot Act to congressional leadership. Many at the time asked: Are we striking the right balance between protecting our national security and our civil liberties? We should always remember that if we are told we must choose one or the other, we are being offered a false choice and a shortsighted remedy that will provide neither. The same goes for bigoted, undemocratic policies demanding that we choose between freedom or safety.
Like those who advance them, policy remedies can either move our country forward or take us back.
The slogan on my friend鈥檚 shirt belonged to a resistance campaign led by the , an extraordinary group of young people who were brutally executed for distributing leaflets in opposition to Nazi policies in Germany during World War II. The phrase 鈥淲e will not be silent鈥� is how they concluded their .
Our fear of Arabic 鈥� or more specifically, of Arabs and Muslims 鈥� remains a problem for some, including those who currently hold some important positions in our government. It is driving an and bad policies. We hope they will soon get over that irrational fear but until they do, we too will not be silent and are protected by the words of our Constitution and the judges sworn to uphold them.
After all, remember that my friend who was targeted for the two words of Arabic on his T-shirt is protected by the 34 words of Arabic 鈥� or 45 in English 鈥� appearing on a billboard near you.
If you want your own sticker copies of the First Amendment translated in Arabic, English and Spanish, they are available for pre-order .
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseAug 2025
Free Speech
Suit Seeking To Punish Freedom From Religion Foundation For Advocacy Dismissed. Explore Press Release.Suit Seeking to Punish Freedom from Religion Foundation for Advocacy Dismissed
OKLAHOMA CITY 鈥� In a win for freedom of speech, a suit filed against the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) was dismissed by a federal judge this week. The suit, filed by the Oklahoma State Department of Education (OSDE), sought to punish FFRF for sending advocacy letters to the department objecting to religious activity in public schools. FFRF filed a motion to dismiss in May, arguing that the suit was a frivolous attempt to silence their protected speech. 鈥淭his decision affirms a fundamental freedom: the right to petition the government for change,鈥� said Vera Eidelman, senior staff attorney with the 51品茶鈥檚 Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. 鈥淭he government has no business suing advocacy organizations for exercising their First Amendment rights, and we are grateful that the court recognized that government actors responding to the public doesn鈥檛 qualify as an injury.鈥� In the decision, the judge agreed that no harm had come to OSDE because of the letters, asking, 鈥淚n what way are Plaintiffs precluded from administering Oklahoma鈥檚 public schools because of Defendant鈥檚 letters?鈥� The case was dismissed without prejudice. 鈥淎s we enter a new school year, this judgement reaffirms our right to speak out against school policies and advocate for change,鈥� said Megan Lambert, legal director at the 51品茶 of Oklahoma. 鈥淭he right to dissent is now more important than ever, and we remain committed to ensuring that people can continue to advocate for better governance and equity in Oklahoma public schools. The Oklahoma State Department of Education is without the power to silence dissent.鈥� 鈥淲e are pleased that this frivolous lawsuit by Walters was promptly dismissed,鈥� says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. 鈥淔FRF will continue to work to protect the constitutional rights of students and families in Oklahoma.鈥� FFRF is represented by the 51品茶 and the 51品茶 of Oklahoma. They argued that the lawsuit is a 鈥淪trategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation鈥� (SLAPP), an abusive legal tactic that seeks to chill expression by saddling defendants with potentially lengthy and expensive litigation in retaliation for protected speech. The motion to dismiss was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma in May. The opinion can be read here. -
News & CommentaryAug 2025
Free Speech
I鈥檓 A Columbia Student Journalist. I Watched Censorship Unfold On My Own Campus.. Explore News & Commentary.I鈥檓 a Columbia Student Journalist. I Watched Censorship Unfold on My Own Campus.
As an opinion editor for the Columbia Daily Spectator during a historic year of campus protests and federal scrutiny, I saw firsthand how student journalists navigated censorship fears, administrative pressure, and growing national attention. -
News & CommentaryAug 2025
Free Speech
Trump's Attacks On Press Freedom Escalate: Npr, Pbs Funding Cuts Explained. Explore News & Commentary.Trump's Attacks on Press Freedom Escalate: NPR, PBS Funding Cuts Explained
From funding cuts and executive orders to billion-dollar lawsuits, the Trump administration is mounting a historic assault on independent journalism and press freedom. -
Press ReleaseJul 2025
Free Speech
Immigrants' Rights
Federal Appeals Court Denies Trump Administration Bid To Re-detain Mahmoud Khalil. Explore Press Release.Federal Appeals Court Denies Trump Administration Bid to Re-detain Mahmoud Khalil
PHILADELPHIA, PA 鈥� The Third Circuit Court of Appeals today rejected the government's request to suspend Mr. Khalil鈥檚 release on bail and re-detain him pending its appeal of the district court鈥檚 bail order. The court also denied the government鈥檚 attempt to stay in full a lower court ruling that the Trump administration cannot seek to deport Mahmoud Khalil on grounds that his lawful, First Amendment-protected speech would compromise U.S. foreign policy. 鈥淢ahmoud spent 104 days in detention as punishment for speaking out for Palestinian rights,鈥� said Noor Zafar, senior staff attorney at the 51品茶 and a member of Mr. Khalil鈥檚 legal team. 鈥淭hat is time with his family that he will never get back, but this decision affirms that he will remain free and that the government cannot pursue his removal based on the likely unconstitutional foreign policy charge as his case moves through appeal.We will not stand by and allow the government to weaponize immigration law to suppress lawful political speech.鈥� The Trump administration has sought to deport Mr. Khalil and other advocates for Palestinian rights using an obscure Immigration and Nationality Act provision that the administration claims allows it to detain and process for deportation noncitizens, including lawful permanent residents like Mr. Khalil, based on mere 鈥渞easonable grounds to believe鈥� that their lawful speech somehow affects U.S. foreign policy interests. In a June 11 order, Judge Michael Farbiarz held that the administration鈥檚 use of the law against Mr. Khalil for his political speech was likely unconstitutional and would cause him irreparable harm. This paved the way for his release from detention on June 20 in a separate order on Mr. Khalil鈥檚 bail motion. Despite the June 11 order, the immigration judge issued an order on June 20 (the same day the district court freed Mr. Khalil on bail) concluding that Mr. Khalil could be removed from the United States based on the foreign policy ground. In response, Mr. Khalil asked Judge Farbiarz to clarify the requirements of the June 11 injunction, which the judge did in a July 17 order, stating that the immigration judge鈥檚 June 20 decision was 鈥渄irectly inconsistent鈥� with his earlier injunction, and ordering the government to take various measures to undo the damage. The government then asked Judge Farbiarz to suspend his own order, which he denied. Mr. Khalil is represented by Dratel & Lewis, the Center for Constitutional Rights, CLEAR, Van Der Hout LLP, Washington Square Legal Services, the 51品茶 (51品茶), the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), the 51品茶 of New Jersey, and the 51品茶 of Louisiana. For all case materials, please see here, here, and here.