Singapore/Ann Arbor: On May 27, a cable was issued to US embassies and consulates around the world by US secretary of state Marco Rubio claiming that the State Department was 'conducting a review of existing operations and processes for screening and vetting of student and exchange visitor (F, M, J) visa applicants, and based on that review, plans to issue guidance on expanded social media vetting for all such applicants'. This followed the termination of sundry student visas for supporting pro-Palestinian protests - to say nothing of MIT banning graduating class president Megha Vemuri and her family from attending her graduation commencement ceremony after she delivered a pro-Palestine speech on May 29 - and a government attempt to prevent Harvard from enrolling foreign students.
While these moves have sparked global outrage, three considerations should be examined carefully:
1. Free speech isn't an absolute right. In the US, some speech is 'unprotected', including incitement to illegal conduct, lawless action and defamation. Lesser known, because seldom enforced, is that US citizens possess greater legal protections than non-citizens, enshrined in the Immigration and Nationality Act (1952) that grants the executive branch broad powers by which to deport non-citizens.
2. Academic protection of free speech is conferred by the Chicago Statement, adopted in 2014, which promises that 'it is not the proper role of the university to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive'. However, many top US universities have not adopted it, selectively applying these rules to some audiences more than others.
Since 2000, the top 10 universities - including Harvard, Stanford, Georgetown and UCLA - have sanctioned individuals 113 times, in classrooms and social media, on topics including gender, religion and Israel (and anti-Semitism). While termination of 225 scholars in the last two decades has not caused as much outrage as the expulsion of international students in 2025, it has provided fodder for present circumstances.
These two reasons are grist to Trump 2.0, which has used statute and precedence to assert its supremacy through intimidation, until inhibited by law.
3. Internet and smartphone ubiquity terrifies the state, because of its ability to instantly disseminate and amplify information and ideas, and convert excitement to incitement. While countries like China, Russia and Saudi Arabia monitor and censor content at will, it's less well known that democracies like Britain and Germany are not far behind.
In Germany, Section 188, which criminalises 'insults' to politicians, led to the prosecutions of ordinary citizens for social media posts or protest letters during the last election. Remit of Section 130 ('incitement of the masses law') was expanded, resulting in prosecutions for criticism of Germany's immigration policies. Similarly, in Britain, custody data obtained by The Times shows that police officers made 12,183 arrests in 2023 under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, and Section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988, a 58% rise in arrests for online posts and messages since 2019.
No wonder the US administration feels its actions are justified. More worryingly, internet users seem oblivious to the limits of online freedom. True free speech, ultimately, exists within specified boundaries, defined by individuals, in a place not monitored by listening or recording devices. The moment this space admits device manufacturers, wireless carriers, advertisers and digital platforms, all speech is sponsored and, therefore, not free.
Virality of its reach and transmission is decided by profitability of its storage, contextualisation and display volume, and is no longer controlled by the originator of that content. And when digital liberty is pitted against governmental sovereignty - because the former can't be localised or negated - individual freedoms and protections will be the first casualties in a looking glass war to protect national security.
Between the 1st c. and 4th c. to avoid Roman persecution, Christians withdrew and hid in catacombs, identified themselves by signs and waited patiently for deliverance. The digital age may witness a similar reaction, in which regular users will likely retreat into private chat groups, strengthen their resolve and await a more liberal climate. And the state will once again force citizens to espouse their grievances in private and to adhere to the party line in public.
In the end, the real losers will be US universities, which could lose scholastic quantity and quality. And digital platforms, which may lose the momentum of guaranteed traffic flows. Over time, as creative protesters produce new memes and symbols to build solidarity, indiscriminate government vigilance and repression may increase to the point where the voting public is forced to slough off its inertia and bring about change.
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of www.economictimes.com)
While these moves have sparked global outrage, three considerations should be examined carefully:
1. Free speech isn't an absolute right. In the US, some speech is 'unprotected', including incitement to illegal conduct, lawless action and defamation. Lesser known, because seldom enforced, is that US citizens possess greater legal protections than non-citizens, enshrined in the Immigration and Nationality Act (1952) that grants the executive branch broad powers by which to deport non-citizens.
2. Academic protection of free speech is conferred by the Chicago Statement, adopted in 2014, which promises that 'it is not the proper role of the university to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive'. However, many top US universities have not adopted it, selectively applying these rules to some audiences more than others.
Since 2000, the top 10 universities - including Harvard, Stanford, Georgetown and UCLA - have sanctioned individuals 113 times, in classrooms and social media, on topics including gender, religion and Israel (and anti-Semitism). While termination of 225 scholars in the last two decades has not caused as much outrage as the expulsion of international students in 2025, it has provided fodder for present circumstances.
These two reasons are grist to Trump 2.0, which has used statute and precedence to assert its supremacy through intimidation, until inhibited by law.
3. Internet and smartphone ubiquity terrifies the state, because of its ability to instantly disseminate and amplify information and ideas, and convert excitement to incitement. While countries like China, Russia and Saudi Arabia monitor and censor content at will, it's less well known that democracies like Britain and Germany are not far behind.
In Germany, Section 188, which criminalises 'insults' to politicians, led to the prosecutions of ordinary citizens for social media posts or protest letters during the last election. Remit of Section 130 ('incitement of the masses law') was expanded, resulting in prosecutions for criticism of Germany's immigration policies. Similarly, in Britain, custody data obtained by The Times shows that police officers made 12,183 arrests in 2023 under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003, and Section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988, a 58% rise in arrests for online posts and messages since 2019.
No wonder the US administration feels its actions are justified. More worryingly, internet users seem oblivious to the limits of online freedom. True free speech, ultimately, exists within specified boundaries, defined by individuals, in a place not monitored by listening or recording devices. The moment this space admits device manufacturers, wireless carriers, advertisers and digital platforms, all speech is sponsored and, therefore, not free.
Virality of its reach and transmission is decided by profitability of its storage, contextualisation and display volume, and is no longer controlled by the originator of that content. And when digital liberty is pitted against governmental sovereignty - because the former can't be localised or negated - individual freedoms and protections will be the first casualties in a looking glass war to protect national security.
Between the 1st c. and 4th c. to avoid Roman persecution, Christians withdrew and hid in catacombs, identified themselves by signs and waited patiently for deliverance. The digital age may witness a similar reaction, in which regular users will likely retreat into private chat groups, strengthen their resolve and await a more liberal climate. And the state will once again force citizens to espouse their grievances in private and to adhere to the party line in public.
In the end, the real losers will be US universities, which could lose scholastic quantity and quality. And digital platforms, which may lose the momentum of guaranteed traffic flows. Over time, as creative protesters produce new memes and symbols to build solidarity, indiscriminate government vigilance and repression may increase to the point where the voting public is forced to slough off its inertia and bring about change.
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of www.economictimes.com)
You may also like
MK Stalin honours scholar Thayammal Aravanan with Kalaignar classical Tamil award
Radio 1's Matt Edmonson's hidden health battle as he's supported by Mollie King
Colin Jerwood dead at 63: British punk rockstar tragically dies as family make sad request
Smriti Mandhana nominated for ICC Women's Player of the Month for May
David Raya held two-hour long Arsenal meeting at training ground - 'There's been a big change'
