FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

IN SAUDI ARABIA AND THE UNITED STATES

ISSUES OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND FREEDOM OF THE PRESS AND THE

POLITICAL - ECONOMIC RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO COUNTRIES

Student: Maria M. Andriotis

Advisor: Paul Levinson

Master’s Project

Master of Arts in Public Media - Journalism Concentration

Graduate School of Arts and Science - Fordham University

 INDEX

Introduction……………………………………………………………………………..…… p 1-3

• Restrictions………………………………………………………………………………… p 3-5

• Regulations on Journalists…………………………………………………………………. p 5-7

• CyberCrime and the Internet………………………………………………………………. p 7-12

• Prohibitions and Penalties (cases)…………………………………………………………. p 12-17

• Barack Obama, Donald Trump and the First Amendment………………………………… p 17-27

-Barack Obama………………………………………………………………………. p 17-23

-Donald Trump………………………………………………………………………. p 24-27

• Where can free speech be limited?……………………………….……………………….. p 27-32

-Incitement…………………………………………………………..…………….… p 27-29

-Fighting Words………………………………………………………………………p 29-30

-Libel………………………………………………………….………………………p 30-31

-Obscenity…………………………………………………………………………… p 31-32

• US’ Relationship with Saudi Arabia - The Obama and Trump Administrations…………. p 32-39

-The Obama Administration………………………………………………………… p 33-37

-The Trump Administration…………………………………………………………. p 37-39

• The Executive Order(s) - Why was Saudi Arabia not included?…………………….……. p 39-47

-A Brief Flash Back……………………….……………………………………….…p 44-45

-The Special Relationship…………………………………………………………….p 45-47

• Is the US justified?……………………………………………………………………..…. p 47-48

• Why is it hard to help Saudi Arabia?……………………………………………………… p 48-50

• Signs of Modernization……………………………………………………………………. p 50-54

 -Women’s Rights 6 years ago and now - First woman CEO of a Bank…………….p 50-52

• Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………….. p 54-56

References…..…….…………………………………………………………………………p 57-61
 1

• Introduction

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a monarchy ruled by King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz al-Saud,

who is both head of state and head of government. The government bases its legitimacy on its

interpretation of Sharia (Islamic law) and the 1992 Basic Law, which specifies that the rulers of the

country shall be male descendants of the founder, King Abdulaziz bin Abdulrahman al-Saud. The Basic

Law sets out the system of governance, rights of citizens, and powers and duties of the government,

and it provides that the Koran and Sunna (the traditions of the Prophet Muhammad) serve as the

country’s constitution. (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/220586.pdf)

Since its founding, Saudi Arabia has always battled with the idea of free speech. The Al Saud

family, the family that has ruled the country for generations, has succeeded in enforcing their monarchy

“through a skillful combination of distribution, penetration, and coercion, with a legitimating dose of

ideology.” (Angrist, 2010) According to author, Michele Angrist, “At the end of the day, governance in

Saudi Arabia is not representative, not accountable, and does not protect rights for citizens. Basic civil

and political rights are absent.” (Angrist, 389) Basic crimes throughout history 465
! ! have been seen to

facilitate strikes, public criticism, and revolt. In fact, revolt is how the country was taken by the Al

Saud dynasty. The Arabs were the ones to revolt against the Turks, leading to the capture of Riyadh, the

capital of Saudi Arabia. Abdul Aziz Al Saud helped the British defeat the Turks in 1902. (Arshad,

2003). It is fair to say that Saudi Arabia has always had a firm restriction on their citizens when it

comes to free expression.

Historically speaking, free speech has always been in play in Saudi Arabia, and this can be seen

clearly by looking at the speeches provided by the past generations of rulers. “Political speech tends to
 2

reiterate the themes embedded in historical studies but also contradicts some aspects of this

historiography.” (Al-Rasheed, 2010) They focus on Saudi Arabia not only as a society but also as a

system of politics born in the modern era. The limitations on free press have been prevalent since the

establishment of the country. This is clear by looking at the number of censorship laws put into play by

the Saudi government, and their reactions to any sort of protest to the way the country is run currently.

The United States and Saudi Arabia have governments completely at odds with one another.

While the United States is a democratic-republic, which contains a Bill of Rights, Saudi Arabia

operates as a monarchy based solely on Islamic law. There is no separation between church and state,

and the government is allowed to monitor the public to ensure they are cooperating with all Islamic

standards and practices. Fair trials in Saudi Arabia are uncommon, and generally the judges are bribed

or persuaded by members of the upper class to render a particular ruling. This is directly contrary with

America, where everyone is supposedly given a fair trial and proclaimed innocent until proven guilty.

Additionally, the Saudi Arabian government suppresses any opposition and the formation of political

parties which could potentially overthrow the monarchy. The family is viewed as more important than

the individual, and people are expected to act in a way that would honor their family. This is the

complete reversal of the United States viewpoint, where individual freedom is a dominant force. In

America, your family background is unimportant and a person is judged for what he or she makes of

himself or herself. Family honor is not really an issue, because Americans tend to look only at

individual responsibility when judging a situation. Additionally, each individual has the right to

freedom of speech and expression, even if it is a controversial view, such as flag-burning. (http://

courses.cs.vt.edu/cs3604/lib/Freedom.of.Speech/International/group4_files/

US_Saudi_Comparison.htm)
 3

In the United States the First Amendment of the Constitution clearly states that “Congress shall

make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or

abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and

to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Even though there is a very little comparison

between the United States and the Saudi Arabia in terms of freedom of expression, the former has faced

and is still facing threats deriving from the past and the current political reality.

• Restrictions

When asked about freedom of expression in Saudi Arabia, there is not much else to say other

than “it hardly exists”. Despite Saudi Arabia’s current role as Chair of the UN Human Rights Council’s

panel of experts which selects candidates for appointment to human rights mechanisms, there is

effectively no legal protection for freedom of expression in Saudi Arabia. There is no Constitution,

specifically no Bill of Rights equivalent, and the 1992 Basic Law does not provide protection for free

speech but instead requires all media and publications to adhere to “good speech” and the laws of the

state, and explicitly prohibits media organizations from publishing anything which harms national

security or public relations, or anything which leads to internal strife.(http://www.pen-international.org/

03/2016/addressing-freedom-of-expression-in-saudi-arabia-a-case-of-double-standards-by-the-uk/)

Authorities, which have broad discretion, are responsible for regulating and determining which

speech or expression undermines internal security. In 2012, there were several protests taking place in

the capital of Saudi Arabia as well as a number of other cities. “Female students of King Khaled

University organized a ‘rare’ sit-in demanding improvement in the treatment of the University’s board

and the expulsion of the University director.” (IFEX, 2012) The authorities called the police who
 4

violently forced the protest to disperse and managed to “[kill] a female student and injuring 54 others in

the proves, as well as detaining a male student who expressed solidarity with them.” The sporadic

detentions that Saudi Arabia has been proven to have made in the previous years is upsetting to more

than just citizens. IFEX reports on March 28, 2012 “Saudi Arabia should end the arbitrary detention

and travel bans inflicted on those who peacefully exercise their freedom of speech or

assembly.” (IFEX, 2012)

The Press and Publications Law states that violators can be fined up to 500,000 riyals

($133,300) for each violation of the law, which is doubled if the violation is repeated. Saudi Arabia

doesn’t adhere to key international human rights standards, including the International Covenant on

Civil and Political Rights which guarantees the right to peaceful freedom of expression, though as a

member of the United Nations it is bound by the Universal Declaration on Human Rights as part of

customary international law. (http://www.pen-international.org/03/2016/addressing-freedom-of-

expression-in-saudi-arabia-a-case-of-double-standards-by-the-uk/)

Islam is the official religion, and all Saudis are required by law to be Muslims. A 2014 royal

decree punishes atheism with up to 20 years in prison. The government prohibits the public practice of

any religion other than Islam and restricts the religious practices of the Shiite and Sufi Muslim minority

sects. Although the government recognizes the right of non-Muslims to worship in private, it does not

always respect this right in practice. The building of Shiite mosques is banned, and non-muslims are

banned from the holy-city of Mecca.

Academic freedom is restricted, and informers monitor classrooms for compliance with

curriculum rules, such as a ban on teaching secular philosophy and religions other than Islam. Despite
 5

changes to textbooks in recent years, intolerance in the classroom remains a significant problem, as

some educators continue to espouse discriminatory and hateful views of non-Muslims and Muslim

minority sects. (https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2016/saudi-arabia)

In the earlier months of 2011, two petitions were sent out by Saudi intellectuals calling for “an

elected parliament with full legislative powers, the independence of the judiciary, greater freedom to

establish civil society organizations, guarantees of freedom of expression, the release of political

prisoners, and greater efforts to root out official corruption.”(Gause, 2011) Even the Saudi elite seems

to be advocating for greater freedom of expression. The petitions, however, were not considered by

Saudi rulers, who instead placed more stringent regulations of political speech and arrested a number of

activists as they have always done. (https://freespeechfreepress.wordpress.com/saudi-arabia/)

• Regulations on Journalists

Media systems in Arab countries, and furthermore Saudi Arabia, are set up by governments

licensing under laws that exhaustively regulate the actions of journalists, creating a press that tends to

support state policies rather than act as a watchdog. William Rugh, ( professor at Middle East Institute

in Washington, whose one of his fields of expertise is Arab Media) says that Arab media systems do

not fit perfectly into the authoritarian model, and notes that the Arab journalist must be “highly

sensitive to the political realities prevailing in his country.” (http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/

viewcontent.cgi?article=1036&context=jmeil)

Every GCC (Golf Cooperation Council) country contains at least one clause in their laws

that in some way mandates journalists ensure their reports are “true.” While a requirement that news

outlets only report the truth and avoid falsehoods seems sensible, many countries have done away with
 6

such legislation because of trouble enforcing such a rule while allowing for a free and independent

press. The truth can be a contested matter, and prohibitions on publishing false news can be abused in

attempts to suppress undesirable allegations, regardless of their validity. Furthermore, truth as a

mandate is compromised by the journalistic technique of attribution. Good journalists attribute their

facts to sources, but mandating “truth” would force journalists to vouch for the veracity of every one of

their sources. In practice, the mandate for journalists to always report “the truth” is simply outside the

realm of possibility. (http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?

article=1036&context=jmeil)

More than half of the journalists imprisoned globally are charged with anti-state crimes,

including Saudi Arabia, where the ruling monarchy, not satisfied with silencing domestic dissent,

teamed up with other governments in the Gulf Cooperation Council to ensure that criticism of

leadership in any member state is dealt severely. Saudi Arabia is the third most censured country in the

world after Eritrea (in number 1) and North Korea (in number 2) according to Committee to Protect

Journalists’ report in 2015.1

Restricting journalists' movements and barring foreign correspondents is one common tactic

used by censoring governments. The Saudi government has progressively intensified legal repression

since the Arab Spring. Amendments to the press law in 2011 punished the publication of any materials

deemed to contravene sharia, impinge on state interests, promote foreign interests, harm public order or

1 Top 10 of censured countries : 1) Eritrea, 2) North Korea, 3) Saudi Arabia, 4) Ethiopia, 5) Azerbaijan, 6)
Vietnam, 7) Iran, 8) China, 9) Myanmar and 10) Cuba.
The list of 10 most censored countries is based on CPJ research, as well as the expertise of the organization's
staff. Countries are measured with the use of a series of benchmarks, including the absence of privately owned or
independent media, blocking of websites, restrictions on electronic recording and dissemination, license
requirements to conduct journalism, restrictions on journalists' movements, monitoring of journalists by
authorities, jamming of foreign broadcasts, and blocking of foreign correspondents. (https://cpj.org/2015/04/10-
most-censored-countries.php)
 7

national security, or enable criminal activity. In 2014, the government issued a new anti-terrorism law

and regulations that Human Rights Watch said will "criminalize virtually any expression or association

critical of the government and its understanding of Islam.” The law granted the Specialized Criminal

Court, established in 2008 the ability to hear unchallenged testimony while the defendant or the

defendant's lawyer is absent. (https://cpj.org/2015/04/10-most-censored-countries.php)

• CyberCrime and the Internet

Before granting public access to the internet in 1999, the Saudi government spent two years

building a controlled infrastructure, so that all internet traffic would pass through government-

controlled servers. With the huge expansion in public network and wireless access, government policy

is changing to allow the development of new technologies while maintaining the same security and

control of media use that is part of Saudi socio- political culture. (https://www.giswatch.org/sites/

default/files/saudiarabia_gisw11_up_web_0.pdf)

Saudi Arabia directs all international Internet traffic through a proxy farm located in King

Abdulaziz City for Science & Technology (KACST)2. A content filter is implemented there, based on

software by Secure Computing. Since October 2006, the Communications and Information Technology

Commission (CITC) has been handling the DNS structure and filtering in Saudi Arabia in the place of

KACST. KACST is a scientific institution reporting to the Saudi Arabian King Abdullah Bin Abdul-

Aziz and the Prime Minister. It includes both the Saudi Arabian national science agency and its national

2King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia is an organization established in 1977
as the Saudi Arabian National Center for Science & Technology (SANCST); in 1985, it was renamed King
Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology. This center was created as an independent scientific organization
that is responsible for the promotion of science and technology in Saudi Arabia. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
King_Abdulaziz_City_for_Science_and_Technology)
 8

laboratories. KACST is responsible for developing and coordinating internet-related policies and

managing the connections between the national and international internet. All privately owned service

providers are linked to the country gateway server at KACST.3 (https://www.giswatch.org/sites/default/

files/saudiarabia_gisw11_up_web_0.pdf)

According to the Saudi Arabian Internet Services Unit, which is the internet service provider for

all of Saudi Arabia, their filtering policy for what is seen on the internet is merely that “all sites that

contain content in violation of Islamic tradition or national regulations shall be blocked.” In March

2007, Saudi Arabia’s legislative body, the Council of Ministers, issued a set of laws15 affecting policy

and regulations for internet users in the kingdom.4 Additionally, a number of sites are blocked

according to two lists maintained by the Internet Services Unit, one containing "immoral" (mostly

pornographic or supportive of LGBT-rights) sites and sites promoting Shia Ideology, the others based

on directions from a security committee run by the Ministry of Interior (including sites critical of the

Saudi government). An interesting feature of this system is that citizens are encouraged to actively

report "immoral" sites (mostly adult and pornographic) for blocking, using a provided web form,

available on the government's website.

The initial legal basis for content filtering is the resolution by Council of Ministers dated on

February 12th, 2001. According to a study carried out in 2004 by the Open Net Initiative "the most

aggressive censorship focused on pornography, drug use, gambling, religious conversion of Muslims,

3 In spite of the fact that Saudi Arabia is considered to be one of the world’s main internet content “over-
regulators”,8 the Saudi government devotes very few resources to regulating internet content. There are only 25
government employees managing the censoring of content. (https://www.giswatch.org/sites/default/files/
saudiarabia_gisw11_up_web_0.pdf)
4The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Council of Ministers Report 11561/B, “Electronic Transitions Legislation”, 27
Mar 2007, www.ncda.gov. sa/media/low21/7.pdf (in Arabic)
 9

and filtering circumvention tools.”. This resolution was subsequently modified and expanded into The

Anti-Cyber Crime Law (2007). Article 6 of this royal decree makes it a crime to produce, possess,

distribute, transmit or store Internet content or a computer program that involves gambling, human

trafficking, pornography or anything deemed to be against Islam, public morals or public order. (https://

opennet.net/countries/saudi-arabia)

On 11 July 2006 the Saudi government blocked access to Wikipedia and Google Translate,

which was being used to bypass the filters on the blocked sites by translating them. (http://archive.is/

SrHQ). In 2011, the Saudi government introduced new Internet rules and regulations that require all

online newspapers and bloggers to obtain a special license from the Ministry of Culture and

Information.The Saudi government says the move is simply designed to protect society - and points out

that it was already censoring content anyway.

Given the restricted environment for print and broadcast media, Saudi Arabia has one of the

highest numbers of bloggers in the Arabic world. Applicants for a license need to be Saudi, at least 20

years old and to have graduated from high school. They will also need 'documents testifying to their

good behavior'. Editors of online newspapers will need to be approved by the Ministry of Information

and Culture. Anyone caught blogging without a license will be subject to a fine of up to 100,000 Riyal

($26,665), and/or a ban - possibly forever. (http://www.tgdaily.com/business-and-law-features/53403-

saudi-arabia-bans-blogging-without-a-licence) The Saudi government has increasingly responded by

blocking select blogs and in some instances, such as the case of Foad Al-Farhan, by harassing and

detaining bloggers.
 10

According to the Freedom House report, the Saudi authorities continue the attempts to block

websites, and pages on the Twitter micro-blogging service that comment on political, social, religious,

and human rights issues. Despite the cultural and religious context, this is a clear example of

criminalizing legitimate expression, as imprisoning individuals for seeking, receiving and imparting

information and ideas can rarely be justified as a proportionate measure to achieve one of the legitimate

aims under Article 19, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.5

(https://www.giswatch.org/sites/default/files/saudiarabia_gisw11_up_web_0.pdf)

The General Commission for Audiovisual Media announced in April 2014 that it will monitor

online and YouTube content to ensure that Saudi contributors, among the largest audience for the online

video-sharing site, adhere to government guidelines. YouTube is used by many Saudis to address

controversial issues, such as women driving, and to document events not covered in the media, such as

the stabbing of a Canadian in a Dhahran city mall in November 2014. Saudi Arabia also used its

regional influence in the Gulf Cooperation Council to pass restrictions that prevent media in member

states from criticizing the leadership of other member states.

A string of arrests and prosecutions of those expressing independent views took place in 2014.

Many of those arrested were accused of press-related charges after covering protests. In October, 2014,

the government used the 2007 Anti-Cyber Crime Law to charge at least seven Saudis in connection

with their use of Twitter to allegedly criticize the authorities and to call for women to be allowed to

drive. (https://cpj.org/2015/04/10-most-censored-countries.php)

5 Frank La Rue, Report of the Special Rapporteur

 11

While Saudi Arabia’s history and culture is unique in its contribution to Islam, understanding

this hiσtory and culture holds the key to understanding the government’s relationship with the religious

right. The kingdom is host to Mecca and Medina, cities of immense religious significance to nearly two

billion Muslims globally, and the royal family comes under frequent pressure from religious bodies to

maintain the sacredness of the land. In most cases, the Saudi government is under pressure not for

being intolerant, but for not being intolerant enough. As a result, when internet legislation is taken on

face value, it is no surprise that human rights activists describe the current status of freedom of

expression and association in Saudi Arabia to be repressive. However, a religious-political context must

be applied to the debate in order to fully examine the reasons behind the status quo.

Additionally, government censorship on internet users in Saudi Arabia, while invading internet

users’ privacy and right to information, is not a new concept – nor is it a concept that is only available

in the East. Most, if not all, governments censor their internet content depending on local laws, norms

and customs. Government censorship generally highlights an important debate on the right to privacy,

and access to content over citizen security, and many countries tend to abuse such powers and over

regulate internet content. This by no means is an excuse to over regulate internet content, but puts the

issue of censorship in Saudi Arabia in perspective. (https://www.giswatch.org/sites/default/files/

saudiarabia_gisw11_up_web_0.pdf)

One core element that the Saudi Arabian authorities have to deal with is balancing

modernization – including access to and use of the internet – and local cultural values and traditions.

The religious establishment in the country has been leading a mass call to “purify” Saudi society from

any entity that could destabilize the monotonous structure it currently holds, often campaigning for

further censorship, and encouraging people to report material they deem “inappropriate” – including
 12

what individuals deem “offensive” and might consider “vulgar” – thereby legitimizing the censorship

process.

• Prohibitions and Penalties (Cases)

Ranked as 165 out of 180 countries in Reporters without Borders press freedom index in 2016 -

the first country is Finland - there is what can broadly be described as a two-pronged approach to

control any criticism of the government and ruling family: the first is a system of prior censorship of

written materials so that people in Saudi Arabia cannot access information about political views, art,

culture or religion that varies from that of the state; the second is a legal framework so broad and vague

that any dissenting voices that do break through, particularly in the digital sphere, can be imprisoned,

often tortured and put behind bars for years after unfair trials where judges have huge discretion over

determining what is a crime and what the punishment should be. In fact, it is often hard for anyone in

Saudi Arabia to know in advance whether something they do is going to break the law or not. (pen-

international.org)

The prior censorship rules under the 2003 Law on Printed Materials and Publications have led

to foreign newspapers being circulated with articles redacted, or pages stuck together. Authorities target

writers and activists who use the internet to express their views. Prominent writer Zuhair Kutbi, a

regular contributor to online news and informational platforms, was detained in July 2015 following a

guest appearance on a talk show during which he discussed political reform in Saudi Arabia. Also in

July, authorities arrested Waleed al-Hussein al-Dood, founder of a news website known for its criticism
 13

of the Sudanese government. A Sudanese citizen and longtime resident of Saudi Arabia, al-Dood

remained in detention without charge as of late 2015.

Social media use has continued to increase in Saudi Arabia with reports indicating that up to

41% of the population tweet on a weekly basis. Twitter provides the principal public forum for debate

in Saudi Arabia. Social media is currently uncensored, although monitored, and there is a vigorous

debate in Saudi society about the extent of freedom of speech online, particularly around hate speech

and personal criticism, with strong views expressed on both sides by respected figures. There continue

to be restrictions on online freedom of expression regarding Islam. On July 2015, the founder of a

liberal internet forum, Raif al-Badawi, was sentenced to seven years in prison and 600 lashes for online

posts critical of the religious authorities. (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/saudi-arabia-

country-of-concern/saudi-arabia-country-of-concern#womens-rights)

One of the most recent cases that demonstrates the violations of freedom of speech in Saudi

Arabia, is the one of Abdulaziz Al-Shubaili. On May 29th 2016, human rights defender Abdulaziz Al-

Shubaili, a principal member of the ACPRA (Civil and Political Rights Association in Saudi Arabia)

who has used social media networks to call for reform and defend people's rights in Saudi Arabia, was

sentenced to eight years in prison for his peaceful and legitimate human rights work in Saudi Arabia. In

a hearing which took place on 29 May 2016, the Specialized Criminal Court (SCC) in Riyadh

sentenced Al-Shubaili to eight years in prison followed by another eight years of a travel ban to start

after he serves his sentence. Moreover, the court decided not to allow him to write any more. He was

accused of many charges including allegedly publishing a statement calling for demonstrations;

accusing judges of dishonesty and human rights violations; and preparing, storing and sending data
 14

affecting public order. (https://www.ifex.org/saudi_arabia/2016/06/09/

sentenced_to_eight_years_in_prison/)

More recently, Loujain al-Hathloul, a prominent Saudi Arabian human rights defender was

detained for 73 days after she defied the kingdom’s de facto driving ban for women by attempting to

drive into Saudi Arabia from the United Arab Emirates on 30 November 2014. Loujain al-Hathloul

went on to stand for election in Saudi Arabia in November 2015 – the first time women were allowed

to both vote and stand in elections in the state. However, despite finally being recognized as a

candidate, her name was never added to the ballot. “It appears she is being targeted once again because

of her peaceful work as a human rights defender speaking out for women's rights, which are

consistently trammeled in the kingdom. If so she must be immediately and unconditionally released,”

Samah Hadid, Director of Campaigns at Amnesty International in the Middle-East, says. Amnesty

International learned that Loujain al-Hathloul is due to travel from Dammam to Riyadh at 17:30 local

time to be interrogated by the Bureau of Investigation and Prosecution. She has no access to a lawyer

and has not been allowed to contact her family.The exact reason for her arrest remains unknown,

however Amnesty International believes it is in relation to her human rights activism. (https://

www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2017/06/saudi-arabia-detains-rights-activist-who-defied-womens-

driving-ban/?utm_source=TWITTER-

IS&utm_medium=social&utm_content=927107901&utm_campaign=Human%20Rights

%20Defenders)

Saudi Arabian citizens are subject to arrest if they post anything considered “offensive” against

the armed forces, public officials, or against the religion of Islam. Saudi Arabia has reiterated its call
 15

for a global blasphemy law, claiming that free speech leads to violations of "religious and ideological

rights.” On 12 April 2017, the Saudi Arabian government released human rights defender Khaled Al-

Omair from prison, more than six months after the completion of his eight-year sentence. He had been

imprisoned on charges including “breaking obedience with the ruler” and “embarking on a protest.”

These charges related to his attempts to hold demonstrations protesting Israeli actions in Gaza in 2008.

Al-Omair had officially completed his sentence on 5 October 2016, but Saudi authorities failed to

release him at that time. During his detention, Saudi authorities reportedly subjected Al-Omair to

torture. Taken as a whole, the Saudi government’s treatment of Khaled Al-Omair is demonstrative of

the government’s mistreatment of prisoners and its troubling prison practices more generally. (http://

www.adhrb.org/2017/05/khaled-al-omair-saudi-arabias-abusive-prison-practices/)

Saudi Arabia does not release detailed information about prison conditions in the country or the

number and distribution of its prison population. However, a 2013 study6 estimated that there were

approximately 47,000 prisoners in the kingdom. According to the Institute for Criminal Policy

Research, central and local Saudi government authorities operate a total of approximately 110 prison

facilities. A large number of inmates across these facilities are prisoners of conscience, including a

number of human rights defenders. The kingdom has, for example, imprisoned the leadership7 of the

Saudi Civil and Political Rights Association (ACPRA), one of the country’s very few independent

6 http://www.prisonstudies.org/country/saudi-arabia
7 Saudi Arabia’s ACPRA: How the Kingdom silences its human rights activists profiles 11 members of the Saudi
Civil and Political Rights Association (ACPRA) - one of the country’s few independent human rights
organizations - who have been jailed or are on trial facing imprisonment, in connection with their human rights
work over the past three years. The Saudi Arabian authorities have targeted the founding members of ACPRA
one by one, in a relentless effort to dismantle the organization and silence its members, as part of a broader
crackdown on independent activism and freedom of expression since 2011. Those targeted include prominent
activists Dr Abdullah al-Hamid and Dr Mohammad al-Qahtani. (https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/
2014/10/muzzling-dissent-saudi-arabia-s-efforts-choke-civil-society/)
 16

human rights organizations. (http://www.adhrb.org/2017/05/khaled-al-omair-saudi-arabias-abusive-

prison-practices/)

Abdulmajeed Al-Omari, the director for external relations at the Saudi Ministry of Islamic

Affairs, a government body which is tasked with "propagating Islam", was quoted by the Saudi Gazette

as saying, "freedom of expression without limits or restrictions would lead to [the] violation and abuse

of religious and ideological rights.” He called for insulting religion to be criminalized, and urged for an

'intensification' of efforts aimed at stamping out affronts to religious symbols. In what amounts to a call

for a global law against blasphemy or 'defamation of religion', Al-Omari added that "everyone" must

"intensify efforts to criminalize insulting heavenly religions, prophets, holy books, religious symbols

and places of worship.”

The Saudi Gazette reports that Al-Omari claimed the 'abuse' of free speech created religious

extremism and, bizarrely, violations of human rights. The paper added that the Saudi government had

"reiterated its call" for the international community to make illegal "any act" which 'vilified' religious

beliefs. (http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2015/08/saudi-ministry--free-expression-is-an-abuse-of-

religious-rights)

“Although the Saudi state is now highly visible, thanks to the infrastructure it has created, its

relations with its people and history remain contentious.”8 (Al-Rasheed, 2010) Studies done by various

historians have shown that Saudi Arabia uses “state-sponsored representations of the past, embedded in

official historiography, political rhetoric and festivities create a historical memory that serves to enforce

obedience to the ruling group.”(Al-Rasheed, 182) As the years progressed, the Saudis have continually

8 Internet cafes are regulated – under-18s are not allowed in, they must close at midnight and their users are surveilled.
(pen-international.gov)
 17

updated their government to keep up with the times, however, the restrictions imposed on citizens

regarding expression are still very prevalent due to the lack of pluralism and high level of self-

censorship.

An example of restriction when it comes to freedom of expression, in my opinion, is Saudi

Arabia soccer team’s behavior on June 8th, during the World Cup game against Australia. The Saudi

Arabian soccer team refused to line up for a minute's silence for the London terror victims because it is

not in keeping with their culture. A spokesman for Football Federation Australia explained they were

told a minute of silence was 'not in keeping with Saudi culture' ahead of the match. An Islamic imam

has suggested the Saudi Arabian team refused to take part in a minute's silence for the London terror

victims because according to Wahhabi Islam - which governs Saudi Arabia - it is not wrong or a sin for

a Muslim to kill a non-Muslim,' he told Daily Mail Australia. Sheikh Tawidi also added the team would

have been “ridiculed” back home if they had commemorated the victims of the London terrorist

attack. Considering their strict religious rules, not only would Saudi Arabian players have been

“ridiculed” but also they could face even grater punishments. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/

article-4584294/Saudi-soccer-team-refuse-stand-London-victims.html)

• Barack Obama, Donald Trump and the First Amendment

- Barack Obama

As an international student myself and an intern at the United Nations, I was interested in

interviewing an international correspondent and learn what his thoughts are regarding the new political
 18

realm the United States has entered, mainly because I wanted a non-American point of view on the

matter. I decided to interview a United Nations Italian correspondent, Mr. Stefano Vaccara. This

interview revolved around the politics, as well as his thoughts on both, former President Obama and

current President Trump in regards to their relationship with the First Amendment. One of my

questions to him was the following:

Maria Andriotis - “ You talked about the First Amendment. There are some journalists who believe

that Obama undermined press freedom and they consider it ironic that during the 2016 election period

he wanted a strong media to stop Trump. What are your thoughts on that?”

Stefano Vaccara - I agree. President Obama is perceived like a good president for freedom and

everything. Yes, for maybe civil rights but not for the First Amendment. He has been one of the worst

presidents for freedom of the press and he is even more dangerous in a certain way than Trump.

Because at least Trump is open. He attacks openly the press, in his Twitter he calls them ‘enemy of the

people’…everybody knows that he is against the press. But if you ask about Obama, many people don’t

know. President Obama did certain things, because actually they couldn't be done without his

authorization… spying on journalists, made the Justice Department entering computers… For example

now when president Obama is talking about sources, that the First Amendment shouldn’t protect these

sources of journalists…all this kind of talking comes directly from Obama but Obama with facts. I

mean there were many journalists under investigation, they were questioned by judges and had a lot of

troubles. And the United States, the last ranking of freedom of the press is, I think, 47. So if you think

about a country that was always on the top 10…with Obama things didn't go well. So I agree with

those who accuse Obama. And I want to finish with this. At least Trump is ignorant about the First

Amendment and the Constitution. If you think that President Obama was a constitutional scholar and
 19

he taught the First Amendment in college, well then you know that he is practically even

worse.” (http://mignatiou.com/2017/03/stefano-vaccara-an-italian-correspondents-thoughts-on-

president-donald-trump/)

Obama spoke in March 2016 at the Toner Prize ceremony, which honors excellence in political

reporting. When he first ran for president in 2008, Obama said, candidates couldn’t just get away with

saying whatever they wanted, regardless of truth. The 2016 election cycle, he said, indicated that this is

no longer the case. (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/30/barack-obama-press-

freedom-strong-media-stop-donald-trump)

Robin Toner, an investigative journalist who died in 2008 and for whom the Toner prize was

named, “demanded that we be accountable to the public for the things that we said and for the promises

that we made,” Obama said. “We should be held accountable.” Obama’s own track record shows that if

anyone isn’t being held accountable for the promises he’s made, it’s Obama himself – at least when it

comes to the deep-diving investigative journalism he professes to want more of. On his first day on the

job, way back in January 2009, Obama issued a memorandum9 declaring that his administration was

“committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in government … and establish a system of

transparency”. This was one of his campaign promises. (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/

2016/mar/30/barack-obama-press-freedom-strong-media-stop-donald-trump) Obama promised that his

would be the most transparent and open administration ever10. In particular, Obama criticized the Bush

administration’s use of a legal loophole known as the state secrets privilege. Citing this privilege,

9 https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/memoranda/2009/m09-12.pdf
10 http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2008/11/the_tmi_presidency.html
 20

government lawyers can keep evidence and testimony from being introduced in court that would reveal

government secrets. That means that if someone sues the government for wrongdoing—say, a plaintiff

claims that he or she was illegally spied on or tortured at the behest of the US government—the Justice

Department can claim key pieces of evidence will expose national security secrets and prevent this

material from being used in court. Doing so would hinder or outright squash the person’s case. (http://

www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/obama-bush-state-secrets-no-fly-list/). Many journalists

believe that the former president has fell well short of this vow, and they see his administration as the

least transparent of all.

The Freedom of Information Act (Foia), signed into law in 1966, is meant to give citizens access

to information about the government agencies their taxes support. In the middle of March, 2016, the

Associated Press reported that the Obama administration set a new record11 in the percentage of Foia

requests answered with either redacted files or nothing at all: 77%. That’s up 12 points from the first

year of Obama’s presidency. (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/30/barack-

obama-press-freedom-strong-media-stop-donald-trump) “It’s incredibly unfortunate when someone

waits months, or perhaps years, to get a response to their request — only to be told that the agency

can’t find anything,” said Adam Marshall, an attorney with the Washington-based Reporters Committee

for Freedom of the Press. (https://apnews.com/697e3523003049cdb0847ecf828afd62/us-govt-sets-

record-failures-find-files-when-asked)

The Obama administration has cited state secrets to prevent federal courts from considering

lawsuits challenging its use of the no-fly list. The roots of this case stretches back to early 2011, when

11 https://apnews.com/697e3523003049cdb0847ecf828afd62/us-govt-sets-record-failures-find-files-when-asked
 21

then-19-year-old Gulet Mohamed called the New York Times from Kuwait with a wild story12 .

Mohamed claimed he had been snatched by Kuwaiti secret police at Kuwait’s airport and beaten and

interrogated in a secret Kuwaiti prison. Now, he told the Times, he was locked up in a Kuwaiti

deportation facility, where he had acquired a cellphone from another inmate. He alleged the US

government was behind his detention. He claimed that FBI agents were questioning him in Kuwaiti

custody, denying him access to a lawyer, and telling him he was on the no-fly list and wouldn’t be

released unless he cooperated. After his plight made national news, Kuwaiti officials took him to the

airport, where he was able to board a flight back to the United States. (The no-fly list is an ever-

changing registry that affords authorities discretion. So if he was on the list, a decision was made to

allow him to make this trip.) When Mohamed returned to the United States, he was interrogated—again

without being given access to a lawyer—at Dulles International Airport. He was never charged with a

crime. (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/07/proxy-detention-gulet-mohamed/)

Mohamed wanted to get off the no-fly list. The trouble, explains Ben Wizner, an attorney at the

ACLU, is that the Obama administration’s “no-fly list policy rests on the idea that the government will

never confirm or deny whether you’re on the list.” Mohamed couldn’t confirm whether he was still on

the list, let alone get his name removed from it. “They won’t tell you whether you’re on the list, they

won’t tell you why you’re on the list if you are, and they won’t tell you what they suspect,” Wizner

says. (Of course, when you’re denied boarding at the airport, you’re effectively being told you’re on

the no-fly list.) So Mohamed sued the government, alleging that Obama administration officials had

violated his constitutional rights both by refusing to confirm whether he was on the no-fly list and by

refusing to allow him to challenge his placement on the list (if he were on it). In the case, Mohamed

12 http://www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2011/01/gulet-mohamed-beaten-kuwait/
 22

argued that being placed on the no-fly list was a government punishment, yet this had happened

(if he were on the list) without due process. (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/obama-

bush-state-secrets-no-fly-list/)

In January, after three years of litigation, a federal court in Virginia declined the Justice

Department’s request to dismiss Mohamed’s case on procedural grounds. That’s when the Obama

administration turned to what Mohamed’s lawyer, Gadeir Abbas of the Council on American-Islamic

Relations, called “the litigation equivalent of the nuclear option”—the state secrets privilege. In a

document filed with the court in late May, Holder argued that Mohamed’s case should be thrown out

entirely because continuing the case would expose US government secrets. (https://www.usatoday.com/

story/news/nation/2014/01/22/no-fly-list/4787409/)

Furthermore, the Obama administration spent seven years trying to compel the New York

Times’ James Risen to reveal his sources. The Justice Department wanted Mr. Risen to testify at the

trial of Jeffrey Sterling, a former C.I.A. officer charged with providing him details about a botched

operation in Iran that was intended to disrupt that country’s nuclear program. Mr. Sterling had raised

concerns inside the government about the program, and prosecutors suspect he took those concerns to

Mr. Risen, who described the program in his 2006 book, “State of War.” (http://www.politico.com/

blogs/media/2015/02/risen-obama-administration-is-greatest-enemy-of-press-freedom-202707)

Mr. Risen, a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner, was the highest-profile journalist drawn into the

Obama administration’s attempt to crack down on government officials who talk to reporters about

national security. The Justice Department has brought more charges in leak cases than were brought in

all previous administrations combined. The case became a rallying cry for journalism groups and civil
 23

rights advocates. Mr. Risen took his fight to the Supreme Court and lost13 , but Attorney General Eric H.

Holder Jr. ultimately said prosecutors would not force him to reveal his sources.

(https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/13/us/times-reporter-james-risen-will-not-be-called-to-testify-in-

leak-case-lawyers-say.html)

Although these examples prove that Barack Obama was not the ideal supporter of freedom of

the press in particularly, there have been situations were he has spoken very highly and rewarded

people - influencers for their strength to step up and express their opinions about sexual preferences

and not only.

A great example, personally speaking, is the Presidential Medal of Freedom. The Presidential

Medal of Freedom recognizes especially meritorious contributions to the national interests of the

United States, its security and its culture. On November 22nd, 2016, Barack Obama awarded 21

Americans the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the country's highest civilian honor. Among the

recipients were artists, athletes, and scientists whom Obama said were people who "helped make him

who [he is].” A lot of important names were present and one of them was television host and LGBT

activist Ellen DeGeneres.

Barack Obama: “It’s easy to forget now, when we’ve come so far, where now marriage is equal under

the law, just how much courage was required for Ellen to come out on the most public of stages almost

20 years ago. Just how important it was not just for the LGBT community, but for all us to see

somebody so full of kindness and light—somebody we liked so much, somebody who could be our

neighbor or our colleague or our sister—challenge our own assumptions, remind us that we have more

in common than we realize, push our country in the direction of justice. What an incredible burden it

13https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/03/us/james-risen-faces-jail-time-for-refusing-to-identify-a-confidential-
source.html
 24

was to bear, to risk your career like that. People don’t do that very often.” (http://www.pbs.org/

newshour/rundown/obama-awards-presidential-medal-freedom-michael-jordan-ellen-degeneres-

others/) and (http://fortune.com/2016/11/23/obama-ellen-degeneres-medal/)

- Donald Trump

From the moment he decided to run for president to the present that he actually is the president,

Donald Trump has been in the center of the attention for both his non-established behavior and his

“intense” relationship with the media. President Trump has been accused for a lot of things and one of

them is his contempt, someone could say, for the press and in general the journalists. “The FAKE

NEWS media (failing @nytimes, @NBCNews, @ABC, @CBS, @CNN) is not my enemy, it is the

enemy of the American People!”14 he has tweeted on February, 2017. Unfortunately, there have been

incidents that do not help the president's reputation to the media world.

The most confrontational moment of Donald Trump’s first press conference in 168 days

featured the President-elect pointing his finger at a CNN reporter and declaring, “You are fake news.”

CNN Senior White House Correspondent Jim Acosta stood pleading with Trump to acknowledge his

question, referencing earlier attacks made by Trump and his press secretary about the accuracy of a

CNN report15 detailing Trump’s ties to Russia. “Mr. President-elect, since you have been attacking our

news organization, can you give us a chance?” Acosta yelled above the scrum of reporters. “No! Not

you. No! Your organization is terrible,” the President-elect shot back. When Acosta persisted in

14https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/832708293516632065?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A
%2F%2Fmetro.co.uk%2F2017%2F02%2F18%2Fpeople-are-telling-donald-trump-that-journalists-are-
nottheenemy-6457856%2F
15 http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/donald-trump-intelligence-report-russia/
 25

shouting for recognition, Trump pointed a finger at him and said, “Don’t be rude. No, I’m not going to

give you a question.” Trump then turned to the next question, and the press conference proceeded from

there. It was a striking moment not only for the direct confrontation between the two men, but also for

the fact that it seemed to have no effect on other journalists in the room. No one immediately leapt to

Acosta’s defense. (https://www.cjr.org/covering_trump/

trump_reporter_question_press_conference_cnn.php)

James Comey's testimony case raised serious allegations against Trump, as even Fox News - a

conservative media outlet - agreed on: “You have a very credible and compelling argument that the

president of the United States has not been truthful with the American people and ordered the director

of the FBI to shut down an investigation,” Napolitano, from Fox News said. (https://www.vox.com/

policy-and-politics/2017/6/9/15770986/conservative-media-fox-news-react-comey-testimony-

propaganda)

President Donald Trump’s apparent suggestion that the FBI should “consider putting reporters

in prison” has been decried as a dangerous new assault on press freedom and prompted a call to action

by American journalists who have been jailed in the US for their work. Among those who criticized the

reported comments are journalist Brian Karem, who spent two weeks in jail in Texas in 1990 for

refusing to give up a source and who told the Guardian they were “deeply concerning”. (https://

www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/21/trump-threat-reporters-press-freedom)

The president’s comments are said to have come amid the revelations that Trump reportedly

asked James Comey, when he was director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to shut down the

federal investigation into Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, in an Oval
 26

Office meeting in February, according to a memo Mr. Comey wrote shortly after the meeting. (https://

www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/us/politics/james-comey-trump-flynn-russia-investigation.html?_r=0)

Before bringing up the subject of the FBI’s probe of Flynn, Trump reportedly complained about

leaks in the news media and said that Comey “should consider putting reporters in prison for publishing

classified information,” according to an associate of Comey, who had seen a memo from then-director

Comey, the NYT said. The journalist who broke the story, Michael Schmidt, expanded on the details

briefly in the paper’s podcast16 on Wednesday morning in which he reported that, according to his

sources: “The president started by talking about leaks and he brought up the fact that he thought James

Comey should try to put reporters in jail. He said: ‘Look, you used to put reporters in prison 10 or 15

years ago and that had some real impact’.” (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/21/

trump-threat-reporters-press-freedom)

Those occurrences demonstrate that neither Donald Trump has been and ideal president for the

First Amendment either, at least so far. The thing that is fascinating though in his situation is that no

matter what he has said - discriminating rhetoric about women, journalists, violence even during his

campaign rallies - he is a master at manipulating the media and turning all the attention to him in such a

captivating way and managed to turn all the “hate” from the media into his own advantage.

There have been examples though showing that, as former president Obama, Trump supports

diversity. Nikos Giannopoulos, a 29 years old special education teacher at the Beacon Charter High

School for the Arts was named Rhode Island's 2017 Teacher of the Year and had the chance to go to the

White House, with all of the other teachers of the year. While at the Oval Office, Nikos Giannopoulos

was wearing a rainbow LGBTQ pin on a blue print jacket, a silver and gold statement necklace and a

16 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/podcasts/the-daily/the-daily-the-secret-memos-of-james-comey.html
 27

nose ring as he stands beside the president and the first lady. He also had a black lace fan, which he

wanted to be holding up for the phone with the presidential couple. NPR asked him:

NPR - What was President Trump's reaction to the fan? Did he say anything?

Nikos Giannopoulos - “Oh, he loved it! I popped it open when I walked into the office because I'm a

very sassy person. And [President] Trump complimented it right away. He said, "I love the fan!" And

he told me I had great style. Then, when I was ushered in for my private photo with the president and

Melania [Trump] I was told I should put it away. So I just folded it up and held it at my side. But when

it came time for the photo, I just asked the president, "Do you mind if I use the fan for the photo?" He

said, "Absolutely go for it." So I popped my fan and did my pose.” (http://www.npr.org/

2017/06/16/533273178/q-and-a-with-the-sassy-teacher-of-the-year-about-that-fan-and-going-viral?

utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_con

tent=20170616)

I believe that injustices against freedom of speech and freedom of press have been occurred in

the United States by both Barack Obama and Donald Trump and those injustices will not stop

happening, unfortunately. The First Amendment has given all of us the right to say, act, believe and

behave in any way we want. But like everything in life, it has too its limitations.

The First Amendment doesn’t guarantee Americans an absolute right to say anything. If you

shout fire in a crowded theater or ring up an airline and say you have planted a bomb on a plane, you

will probably be arrested—and rightly so. In the First Amendment there are some more exceptions to

freedom of speech. Companies can require employees to sign non-disclosure agreements. The federal

government can censor articles about troop movements that might endanger military operations.

(During the Iraq war, correspondents embedded with fighting units were not allowed to reveal their
 28

precise locations.) (http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/obama-on-free-speech-was-he-

being-utopian)

• Where can free speech be limited?

- Incitement

Political speech is generally considered to be an essential part of the marketplace of ideas and

has been described by the Supreme Court as “lying at the core of the First Amendment” and its

protections - see NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. National Association for the Advancement of

Colored People v. Claiborne Hardware Co., is a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled

8-0 (Marshall did not participate in the decision) that although states have broad power to regulate

economic activities, they can not prohibit peaceful advocacy of a politically-motivated boycott.

In 1966, a boycott of white merchants in Claiborne County, Miss., was launched at a meeting of

a local branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) attended

by several hundred black persons. The purpose of the boycott was to secure compliance by both civic

and business leaders with a lengthy list of demands for equality and racial justice. (https://

supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/458/886/case.html)

Thus, when the government is accused of suppressing political speech based on its content, the

government’s action will be subject to strict scrutiny - see Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass’n.

Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, is a landmark case by the Supreme Court of the United

States that struck down a 2005 California law banning the sale of certain violent video games to

children without parental supervision. In a 7–2 decision, the Court upheld the lower court decisions and

nullified the law, ruling that video games were protected speech under the First Amendment as other
 29

forms of media. (https://www.ravellaw.com/opinions/7f61c724eb609dc6c81294bd99d6688b) That is,

the government’s action will be found unconstitutional unless the government establishes that its action

is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.

However, there is speech that “falls within those relatively few categories of instances where

prior decisions have established the power of government to deal more comprehensively with certain

forms of individual expression simply upon a show that such a form was employed.” See Cohen v.

California. Cohen v. California, was also, a United States Supreme Court case dealing with freedom of

speech. The Court overturned a man's conviction for the crime of disturbing the peace for wearing a

jacket in the public corridors of a courthouse that displayed the phrase, "Fuck the Draft”. (https://

globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/cohen-v-california/) One of these unprotected

categories of speech is “incitement.” This unprotected category of speech was first established by the

Supreme Court in Schenck v. US. In Schenck v. United States (1919), the Supreme Court invented the

famous "clear and present danger" test to determine when a state could constitutionally limit an

individual's free speech rights under the First Amendment. It was the time, when it was held that “[T]he

Constitution permits the punishment of speech when the words are used in such circumstances and are

of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils

that Congress has a right to prevent.”17 (https://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/capitalism/

landmark_schenck.html)

17 In reviewing the conviction of a man charged with distributing provocative flyers to draftees of World War I,
the Court asserted that, in certain contexts, words can create a "clear and present danger" that Congress may
constitutionally prohibit. While the ruling has since been overturned, Schenck is still significant for creating the
context-based balancing tests used in reviewing freedom of speech challenges. (https://www.pbs.org/wnet/
supremecourt/capitalism/landmark_schenck.html)
 30

- Fighting Words

The United States Supreme Court, affirming a decision of the Supreme Court of New

Hampshire, held that the statute under which the appellant had been convicted was narrowly drawn and

limited and therefore did not place an unreasonable restriction on freedom of speech as guaranteed by

the Constitution. Chaplinsky had called the City Marshal of Rochester, New Hampshire, “a God

damned racketeer” and “a damned Fascist,” following a disturbance while Chaplinsky was distributing

pamphlets on the Jehovah’s Witnesses religious sect. A municipal court in Rochester convicted

Chaplinsky under a state statute banning offensive words to others in public. The Supreme Court of

New Hampshire affirmed the conviction following a trial ‘de novo’ in the Superior Court. The court

said that the constitutional right to freedom of speech is not absolute and that obscene, profane, libelous

and insulting words that by their very utterance, inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of

the peace, such as those used by the appellant, came within the limited class of speech known as

“fighting words,” and were a reasonable exception to the right to freedom of speech. (https://

globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/chaplinsky-v-new-hampshire/ )

There, the Court held that “fighting words” were “[T]hose which by their very utterance inflict

injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.” Such words are “no essential part of any

exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be

derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.” The speech must,

considered objectively, be abusive and insulting rather than a communication of ideas; and it must

actually be used in an abusive manner in a situation which presents an actual danger that it will cause a

breach of peace. Despite a definition that focuses on the inherently harmful/provocative nature of the
 31

words themselves, in practice the applicability of the fighting words doctrine depends largely on the

context in which the words are used. (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/315/568/case.html)

- Libel

This unprotected category of speech is prevalent in the context of a plaintiff seeking damages

from a defendant for the defendant’s speech regarding the plaintiff. In New York Times v. Sullivan, the

Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a

defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with

“actual malice” – that is, “with knowledge that it was false or w/ reckless disregard of whether it was

false or not.” (https://billofrightsinstitute.org/educate/educator-resources/lessons-plans/landmark-

supreme-court-cases-elessons/new-york-times-v-sullivan-1964/) The Court based its holding on its

reasoning that debate on public issues must be “uninhibited, robust and wide open,” and may often

include “vehement, caustic and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public

officials.” (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/376/254/case.html) In time and after winning

this case, the N.Y. Times standard was extended from “public officials,” to “public figures.” A public

figure, the Supreme Court held, included any of the following three classes of people: (i) those who

have “general fame and notoriety in the community,” who are public figures for all purposes; (ii) those

who have “voluntarily injected themselves into a public controversy in order to influence the resolution

of the issues involved,” who are public figures only w/ respect to that controversy; and (iii)

“involuntary public figures,” who are directly affected by the actions of public officials, such as a

defendant in a criminal case.

- Obscenity
 32

This category of unprotected speech was first recognized by the Supreme Court in Roth. Roth v.

United States, along with its companion case Miller v. California, was a landmark case before the

United States Supreme Court which redefined the Constitutional test for determining what constitutes

obscene material unprotected by the First Amendment. The Roth Court held that obscenity was

unprotected because “[S]uch utterances are not an essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of

such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly

outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.” (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/

354/476/)

The Supreme Court later established a three-part test to obscenity in Miller v. California.

Speech constitutes obscenity if: (i) the average person, applying contemporary community standards

would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (https://supreme.justia.com/

cases/federal/us/354/476/) (ii) the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual

conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (iii) the work, taken as a whole, lacks

serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/

413/15/case.html) It is vital to note that the first prong applies “contemporary community” standards,

and not national standards. The jury or judge trying the case in issue must be careful not to consider

national standards for determining whether the first prong is satisfied.

• US’ Relationship with Saudi Arabia - The Obama and Trump Administration
 33

Various American administrations pursue their own benefits when it comes to supporting Saudi

Arabia, because Washington intends to dominate oil resources and market. The United States began its

global attempt to dominate [oil resources and petrodollars] and that is what solidified the marriage

between Saudi Arabia and the United States.

The relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia dates back to the late 30s and 40s

when the petrodollar and the oil revenues of Saudi Arabia were contracted in blood.

- The Obama Administration

Saudi Arabia’s “special friendship” with the U.S., as officials have been keen to highlight over

the years, has allowed for U.S. officials to pick and choose when to show outrage and when to

denounce human rights violations, manipulating international law to the tune of their own political

agendas, rather than objectively defending the rule of law.

Washington has been turning a deaf ear to calls for stopping arms sales to Saudi kingdom due to

its poor human rights record and its bloody war against Yemen. In 2015, the US approved more than

$20 billion in military sales to Saudi Arabia. Riyadh is going to expand its military budget by three

percent annually from 2018, according to the IHS Jane’s information group.

First big disappointment for the Saudis when it comes to the US, was the Raif Badawi’s case

with the US omitting the incident. Raif Badawi ran a Web site called Saudi Liberal Network, which

dared to discuss the country’s rigid Islamic restrictions on culture. The Web site scoffed,

“Congratulations to us for the Commission on the Promotion of Virtue for teaching us virtue and for its

eagerness to insure that all members of the Saudi public are among the people of paradise.” (http://

www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/saudi-whipping)
 34

Badawi’s site, which the government ordered taken down, often pushed the Saudi monarchy to

show the same degree of religious tolerance that is customary in the West. In one article, which has

been translated and reposted elsewhere, Badawi wrote:

We have not asked ourselves how it is that America allows Islamic missionaries on its territory, and

how it is that we reject under all circumstances the freedom to proselytize within our Kingdom’s land.

We can no longer hide our heads like an ostrich and say that no one can see us or that no one cares.

Whether we like it or not, we, being a part of humanity, have the same duties that others have as well as

the same rights.

When Badawi was arrested, in 2012, the charges against him included undermining Saudi

security. A judge initially recommended that he be charged with apostasy, which carries an automatic

death sentence. A noted Saudi cleric, Sheikh Abdul-Rahman al-Barrak, issued a religious ruling that

Badawi was an “unbeliever,” because his site declared that Muslims, Jews, Christians, and atheists

were equal, according to Human Rights Watch. In 2013, when Badawi’s sentence was handed down

and the punishment also included an additional three months in prison, Jen Psaki, speaking for the State

Department, said, “The United States strongly opposes laws, including apostasy laws, that restrict the

exercise of these freedoms, and urges all countries to uphold these rights in practice.” (http://

www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/saudi-whipping) In 2014 his sentence was increased to 10 years

in prison, 1000 lashes, and a fine. The flagellation was to be carried out over 20 weeks. The first 50

lashes were administered on January 9, 2015. (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/09/saudi-

blogger-first-lashes-raif-badawi).The second flagellation has been postponed more than twelve times.

The reason for the most recent postponement is unknown, but the previous scheduled flagellations were

delayed due to Badawi's poor health.

 35

(http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/saudi-blogger-raif-badawi-spared-flogging-again-this-

week/article23001011/). Badawi is known to have hypertension and his health has worsened since the

flagellation began.

Marking the fifth anniversary of the arrest of Raif Badawi, Samah Hadid, Middle-East Director

of Campaigns for Amnesty International said: “Raif Badawi has already served half of his prison term,

but he shouldn’t be locked up in the first place. Saudi Arabian authorities must ensure his immediate

and unconditional release, as well as the release of all prisoners of conscience detained solely for

exercising their right to freedom of expression. Blogging is not a crime. The harsh punishment of Raif

Badawi shows the Saudi Arabian authorities’ blatant contempt for freedom of expression and the extent

to which they are willing to go to crush all forms of dissent.”

More than a million messages from Amnesty International activists have been sent in support of

Raif Badawi since 2014. In 2015, the campaign also highlighted the plight of his lawyer, Waleed Abu

al-Khair, who is currently serving a 15-year prison term solely for his human rights work. (https://

www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2017/06/saudi-arabia-release-blogger-raif-badawi-still-behind-bars-

after-five-years/)

When President Obama traveled to Riyadh in the beginning of 2015, reporters were told that he

did not bring up Raif Badawi's flogging, despite its high profile. That fits into a pattern for the United

States, which rarely brings up specific concerns about Saudi human rights, in public at least.

Despite Obama’s open rejection of bigotry, it would appear that Washington has blanketed

Riyadh under its own exceptionalism — all in the name of economic pragmatism.18 Such selective

blindness was also recently highlighted by Washington’s silence over the beheading of Sheikh Nimr al-

18 Indeed, the nations’ interests are so intertwined that Saudi Arabia remains instrumental to U.S. economic stability
through the petrodollar system.
 36

Nimr in Saudi Arabia on January 2nd. He was among the victims of Saudi Arabia’s campaign to

execute 47 “terrorists,” including by beheading and death by firing squad, in the country’s largest mass

execution in decades. A pivotal figure for peaceful resistance in Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr, a

man of letters who reinvented himself as a human rights defender in the face of the suffering of his

community in the eastern Saudi province of Qatif, was arrested in 2012 for speaking out against the

House of Saud. Following a brutal police pursuit and arrest in which he suffered gunshot wounds,

Sheikh al-Nimr was sentenced to death on charges of sedition, disobedience and bearing arms. Ali al-

Ahmed, founder and director of the Institute for Gulf Affairs, a Washington-based think tank,

emphasized that any and all critics of the Saudi monarchy are designated as terrorists. (http://

www.mintpressnews.com/the-us-wraps-saudi-arabia-and-its-human-rights-atrocities-in-its-cloak-of-

exceptionalism/212913/ )

That attitude disappoints many in Saudi Arabia who see the impact of foreign pressure in

specific cases: For example, Badawi's case received international media attention, his floggings were

repeatedly suspended. As one Saudi activist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity out of concerns

of government retribution, explained in an e-mail, "global attention is the only leverage we have as

subjects in an absolute monarchy." For this activist, a big problem is that there are many other similar

cases that don't receive any attention at all.

For many, the double standards here are jarring. "On the one hand, the Obama administration

condemns the beheadings, torture and crackdowns conducted by the armed group Islamic State,"

Sunjeev Bery, advocacy director at Amnesty International USA, said. "On the other hand, the White

House is relatively quiet when Saudi Arabian authorities engage in some of the exact same human
 37

rights abuses.” Part of this is because the core of the U.S.-Saudi relationship – energy and security –

relies on a stable Saudi Arabia. Given that there doesn't appear to be public unrest calling for reforms,

the United States is cautious about undermining the Saudi government in any way.

In terms of politics, the deputy crown prince explained that the region saw former President

Barack Obama’s administration as having let its Gulf allies down, and how that negative perception had

affected relations. The Obama administration’s failure to deal with conflicts in the region led to their

becoming more complex and more difficult to solve. Trump’s visit is seen as a corrective that will

underscore the importance of the longstanding bilateral relations. (http://www.riyadhvision.com.sa/

2017/05/16/the-significance-of-trumps-visit-to-riyadh/)

Saudi Arabia in particular appears relieved at the departure of Barack Obama, who it felt considered

Riyadh's alliance with Washington less important than negotiating a deal in 2015 to neutralize Iran's

nuclear program. The relationship is a pillar of the Middle East's security balance. But it has suffered

since Riyadh took issue with what it saw as Obama's withdrawal from the region, and a perceived

inclination towards Iran since the 2011 Arab uprisings. (http://www.businessinsider.com/r-glad-to-see-

obama-go-gulf-arabs-expect-trump-to-counter-iran-2017-1)

-The Trump Administration

In 1974, Richard Nixon became the first American President to visit Saudi Arabia and Israel—

as well as Syria—on a swing intended to chalk up triumphs abroad and, more pointedly, to divert

attention from the escalating Watergate crisis at home. It was a reassuring trip for the beleaguered
 38

President. He promoted a new peace process and talked up a regional realignment to stabilize the

Middle East after the 1973 war.

In March, 2017, President Donald Trump flew to Saudi Arabia in the first overseas trip of his

presidency. The US and Saudi Arabia have a history of strategic relations stretching back more than 75

years, and this visit is expected to further strengthen those relations. Saudi Arabia's King Salman touted

a meeting between President Donald Trump and heads of state from across Muslim-majority nations as

the start of a new relationship that will strengthen global security. Trump and Salman met for the first

time in Saudi Arabia for bilateral talks aimed at repairing relations that were strained under the Obama

administration. Saudi Arabia viewed Trump's visit as a way to shore up support among its allies and

with Washington against its rival Iran.

In general, the Ruling family has been pleased with the 2016 elections’ outcome and seemed

more than happy to welcome president Trump. For many in Saudi Arabia, this was a trip full of

significance and great importance considering the disappointment the Gulf states claim to had received

from the Obama administration. Dr. Hamdan Al-Shehri, writes that “Trump realizes the big regional

role played by Saudi Arabia in putting together an Islamic coalition to counterterrorism, with all its

challenges and dangers. He knows the Kingdom has a vision of development and prosperity, unlike

Iran which supports revolution and chaos, and that Saudi Arabia is a leader of efforts to secure the

region and restore stability. Trump is showing his support for the war on terror by visiting Muslims,

Jews and Christians who are united in their desire to eradicate extremist terrorism. Saudi Arabia

welcomes his visit; bilateral cooperation was clearly emphasized with the appointment of King

Salman’s son, Prince Khaled bin Salman, as Saudi ambassador to the US.” (http://

www.riyadhvision.com.sa/2017/05/16/the-significance-of-trumps-visit-to-riyadh/)
 39

Some could say that President Trump’s Trip in Saudi Arabia thought is a bit unusual given his

attitude toward the country during the Presidential campaign. He complained that the U.S. backs the

kingdom “at tremendous expense,” and “we get nothing for it”; he tied the kingdom to the 9/11 attacks;

and he wrote on his Facebook page, “Saudi Arabia and many of the countries that gave vast amounts of

money to the Clinton Foundation want women as slaves and to kill gays. Hillary must return all money

from such countries!” Just last month, Trump told Reuters, “Frankly, Saudi Arabia has not treated us

fairly, because we are losing a tremendous amount of money in defending Saudi Arabia.”

The State Department’s latest Human Rights Report, issued by the Trump Administration, in

March, faults the monarchy for one of the world’s worst records. In a checklist of bad practices, the

State Department cites violence against women; restrictions on freedom of expression, assembly,

movement, and religion; arbitrary arrests; denial of due process by the judiciary; prosecuting human-

rights activists and reformers; prisoner abuse; and pervasive discrimination based on gender, religion,

race, and ethnicity. “Lack of governmental transparency and access made it difficult to assess the

magnitude of many reported human rights problems,” it concludes. (http://www.newyorker.com/news/

news-desk/donald-trumps-three-religion-tour-of-the-middle-east?mbid=rss)

• The Executive Order(s) - Why was Saudi Arabia not included?

In March 6th, 2017, President Donald Trump announced his executive order - “Executive Order

Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States” - which suspended for 90

days the entry of certain aliens from seven countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and

Yemen. (https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/executive-order-protecting-nation-

foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states) This ordered aimed to protect the Untied States since these
 40

countries had already been identified as presenting heightened concerns about terrorism and travel to

the United States. The criticism towards this order was tremendous and immediate and many referred

to it as “unconstitutional” and/or “illegal.”

First of all, it is quite likely the executive order itself is constitutional. Notably, on June 26,

2017, the four liberal justices on the Supreme Court joined the five conservatives, ruling in favor of

allowing the administration to enforce the ban on non-US citizens, with no “bona-fide” connection to

the US, until the case can be heard on the merits in October. (http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/26/

supreme-court-travel-ban-ruling-a-huge-win-for-trump-commentary.html) Moreover, the President’s

vetting order is legal under the provisions of section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the

Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., and section 301 of title 3, which says

that the president can suspend the entry of any alien or group of aliens if he finds it to be detrimental to

the national interest. In order to be completely clear, it is crucial to say that the Supreme Court has not

ruled on the merits of the entire case.

A review of information compiled by a Senate committee in 2016 reveals that 72 individuals

from the seven countries covered in President Trump's vetting executive order have been convicted in

terror cases since the 9/11 attacks. In June 2016 the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the

National Interest, then chaired by new Attorney General Jeff Sessions, released a report on individuals

convicted in terror cases since 9/11. Using open sources (because the Obama administration refused to

provide government records), the report found that 380 out of 580 people convicted in terror cases

since 9/11 were foreign-born. The report is no longer available on the Senate website, but a summary

published by Fox News is available here: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/22/anatomy-terror-

threat-files-show-hundreds-us-plots-refugee-connection.html?intcmp=hplnws. The Center has obtained

 41

a copy of the information compiled by the subcommittee19 . The information compiled includes names

of offenders, dates of conviction, terror group affiliation, federal criminal charges, sentence imposed,

state of residence, and immigration history.20 (http://cis.org/vaughan/study-reveals-72-terrorists-came-

countries-covered-trump-vetting-order)

Second of all, it is extremely important to remember that the Obama administration did a

similar thing in 2011. To avoid any type of misunderstanding or being accused of having a biased point

of you, I read both executive orders and I understand the differences they may have. The Obama law

“does not ban travel to the United States, or admission into the United States, and the great majority of

Visa Waiver Program travelers will not be affected” (https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/02/18/dhs-

announces-further-travel-restrictions-visa-waiver-program) and did not completely stop all entry from

Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Syria, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen, while the Trump law bans all seven countries.

But, the core of both executive orders as well as the content of them had the same “goal” - to protect

19http://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/Terror%20Arrests.senate%20judiciary.pdf
The United States has admitted terrorists from all of the seven dangerous countries:
• Somalia: 20
• Yemen: 19
• Iraq: 19
• Syria: 7
• Iran: 4
• Libya: 2
• Sudan: 1
• Total: 72 (http://cis.org/vaughan/study-reveals-72-terrorists-came-countries-covered-
trump-vetting-order)
20 Some opponents of the travel suspension have tried to claim that the Senate report was flawed because it
included individuals who were not necessarily terrorists because they were convicted of crimes such as identity
fraud and false statements. About a dozen individuals in the group from the seven terror-associated countries are
in this category. Some are individuals who were arrested and convicted in the months following 9/11 for
involvement in a fraudulent hazardous materials and commercial driver's license scheme that was extremely
worrisome to law enforcement and counter-terrorism agencies, although a direct link to the 9/11 plot was never
claimed. The information in this report was compiled by Senate staff from open sources, and certainly could
have been found by the judges if they or their clerks had looked for it. Another example that should have come to
mind is that of Abdul Razak Ali Artan, who attacked and wounded 11 people on the campus of Ohio State
University in November 2016. Artan was a Somalian who arrived in 2007 as a refugee. (http://cis.org/vaughan/
study-reveals-72-terrorists-came-countries-covered-trump-vetting-order)
 42

the United States from terrorism. Both orders chose those seven specific countries as countries of high

concern and threat to the United States. Both orders seemed to aim to “strengthen the security of the

Visa Waiver Program and ensure the Program’s requirements are commensurate with the growing

threat from foreign terrorist fighters, many of whom are nationals of Visa Waiver Program

countries.” (https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/02/18/dhs-announces-further-travel-restrictions-visa-

waiver-program) “ It is therefore the policy of the United States to improve the screening and vetting

protocols and procedures associated with the visa-issuance process and the USRAP.” (https://

www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/executive-order-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-

entry-united-states)

One thing that is odd though, is the exception of Saudi Arabia in both executive orders. Osama

bin Laden was a saudi-born and the terrorists of 9/11 were Saudis as well. Why the ones who were to

blame for the horror the United States faced in 2001 are not included in such vetting order? I

understand the skepticism behind letting Muslim citizens entering the US because of terrorism - the rise

of Radical Islam - but if we want to minimize terrorism why exclude the most dangerous kind of

terrorism? But the choice of the countries that were going to be included in the executive orders was

not for security reasons only… I asked, again, my interview, Mr. Vaccara, regarding those executive

orders because I was curious to learn how a non American feels about the matter:

Maria M. Andriotis: “What do you think about Trump’s executive order, regarding the 7 Muslim

countries? Some people compare it to Obama’s executive order in 2011. Do you agree with that?”

Stefano Vaccara: “The reasons why I am against the executive order are two: the executive order if

you really go through it and read it, the original one, the one they did that day, was not unconstitutional.

You can ban people coming from other country for certain moment for security reasons, so this wasn’t
 43

the problem. The problem was, that when you have to lift this ban from these countries you need to

make sure that you start giving visas again to the minority religions of these countries. The minority

religions of…we’re talking about Syria, Iraq and so on, are Christians. I understand that Christians,

most of them have suffered genocide in certain regions but the point is that this is unconstitutional. You

cannot ban people by religion. You cannot say, “ok give preference to the Christians and then the

Muslims’. This is what I didn’t like because this is a sign that they don’t respect the Constitution so I

am glad that the judges stopped them. As far as the choice of the countries, I know that this was a list

prepared by Obama so Obama is to blame too. I don’t understand why we are so afraid of people

coming from Syria or Somalia when we know that the terrorists from 9/11 are all coming for Saudi

Arabia but those countries are not on the list. That’s what makes the ban not credible. if you think that

this was just for security, Saudi Arabia should be on the top of the list. Because the experience we have

from US born terrorists - lets remember that after 9/11 all the incidents where people died… I’m

talking about Orlando, Saint Bernardino and so on - are all terrorists who are born here. They didn't

come from another country. They were Muslims, if you will, but they were from here. They were not

immigrants with visas who were trying to come in the country. And in 9/11 all of the terrorists…most

of them came from Saudi Arabia. Of course they are 1% of the population. The 99% of the Saudi are

not dangerous they are trying to come to this country to study, to work…but it is more likely to find

terrorism connection with Saudi Arabia.” (http://mignatiou.com/2017/03/stefano-vaccara-an-italian-

correspondents-thoughts-on-president-donald-trump/)

- A brief flash back

 44

After World War 2, the US had the largest gold reserves in the world, by far. Along with

winning the war, this let the US reconstruct the global monetary system around the dollar. The new

system, created at the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944, tied the currencies of virtually every country

in the world to the US dollar through a fixed exchange rate. It also tied the US dollar to gold at a fixed

rate of $35 an ounce. The Bretton Woods system made the US dollar the world’s premier reserve

currency. It effectively forced other countries to store dollars for international trade, or to exchange

with the US government for gold. (http://www.dummies.com/education/finance/international-finance/

the-impact-of-the-bretton-woods-conference-in-1944/)

By the late 1960s, the number of dollars circulating had drastically increased relative to the

amount of gold backing them. This encouraged foreign countries to exchange their dollars for gold,

draining the US gold supply. It dropped from 574 million troy ounces at the end of World War 2 to

around 261 million troy ounces in 1971. To plug the drain, President Nixon “suspended” the dollar’s

convertibility into gold on August 15, 1971. This ended the Bretton Woods system and severed the

dollar’s last tie to gold. Since then, the dollar has been a pure fiat currency, allowing the Fed to print as

many dollars as it pleases.21 (http://www.dummies.com/education/finance/international-finance/the-

impact-of-the-bretton-woods-conference-in-1944/) and (https://books.google.gr/books?

id=kP_WxbkSokIC&pg=PA11&lpg=PA11&dq=Saudi+Arabia+and+its+toxic+relationship+with

+America&source=bl&ots=sGtlXkpXp2&sig=vXLHo_krwkZPnIaX98pQqZygW1A&hl=el&sa=X&v

21 Of course, Nixon said the suspension was only temporary. That was lie No. 1. It’s still in place over 40 years
later. And he claimed the move was necessary to protect Americans from international speculators. That was lie
No. 2. Money printing to finance out-of-control government spending was the real threat. Nixon also said the
suspension would stabilize the dollar. That was lie No. 3. Even by the government’s own rigged statistics, the US
dollar has lost over 80% of its purchasing power since 1971. (http://www.internationalman.com/articles/trump-
left-saudi-arabia-off-his-immigration-ban-heres-the-shocking-reason)
ed=0ahUKEwjA9L6mhsDUAhVDwxQKHRgUBusQ6AEIQTAE#v=onepage&q=Saudi%20Arabia

%20and%20its%20toxic%20relationship%20with%20America&f=false)

The death of the Bretton Woods system—which was really the US government defaulting on its

promise to back the dollar with gold—had profound geopolitical consequences. Most critically, it

eliminated the main motivation for foreign countries to store large US dollar reserves and to use the US

dollar for international trade. So the US government concocted a new arrangement to give foreign

countries another compelling reason to hold and use the dollar. The new arrangement, called the

petrodollar system, preserved the dollar’s special status as the world’s reserve currency. For President

Nixon and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, it was a geopolitical and financial masterstroke. (http://

www.internationalman.com/articles/trump-left-saudi-arabia-off-his-immigration-ban-heres-the-

shocking-reason)

-The special relationship

From 1972 to 1974, the US government made a series of agreements with Saudi Arabia, which

created the petrodollar system. The US handpicked Saudi Arabia because of the kingdom’s vast

petroleum reserves and its dominant position in OPEC—and because the Saudi royal family was (and

is) easily corruptible.

The US also picked Saudi Arabia for geopolitical reasons. During the Yom Kippur War of 1973,

OPEC’s Arab members started an oil embargo to punish the US for supporting Israel. Oil prices

quadrupled, inflation soared, and the stock market crashed. The US was in a vulnerable position. It

needed to neutralize the Arabs’ potent Oil Weapon. Turning a hostile Saudi Arabia into an ally was the

key. The alliance would also help check Soviet influence in the region. In essence, the petrodollar

system was an agreement that the US would guarantee the House of Saud’s survival. In exchange,
 46

Saudi Arabia would: a) take the Oil Weapon off the table, b) use its dominant position in OPEC to

ensure that all oil transactions would only happen in US dollars and c) invest billions of US dollars

from oil revenue in US Treasuries. This let the US issue more debt and finance previously

unimaginable budget deficits. (https://books.google.gr/books?

id=kP_WxbkSokIC&pg=PA11&lpg=PA11&dq=Saudi+Arabia+and+its+toxic+relationship+with

+America&source=bl&ots=sGtlXkpXp2&sig=vXLHo_krwkZPnIaX98pQqZygW1A&hl=el&sa=X&v

ed=0ahUKEwjA9L6mhsDUAhVDwxQKHRgUBusQ6AEIQTAE#v=onepage&q=Saudi%20Arabia

%20and%20its%20toxic%20relationship%20with%20America&f=false) and (http://

www.internationalman.com/articles/trump-left-saudi-arabia-off-his-immigration-ban-heres-the-

shocking-reason)

This creates an artificial market for US dollars. The dollar is just a middleman in countless

transactions that have nothing to do with US products or services. Ultimately, the arrangement boosts

the US dollar’s purchasing power. It also creates a deeper, more liquid market for the dollar and US

Treasuries. Plus, the US has the unique privilege of buying imports, including oil, with its own

currency… which it can print. (http://www.internationalman.com/articles/trump-left-saudi-arabia-off-

his-immigration-ban-heres-the-shocking-reason)

It’s hard to overstate how much the petrodollar system benefits the US dollar. It’s allowed the

US government and many Americans to live beyond their means for decades. And it’s the reason the

media and political elite give the Saudis special treatment. It’s the reason why President Trump and

former President Obama left the Saudis off of their executive orders. It was a glaring omission that

Saudi Arabia—the country that provided 15 of the 19 hijackers for the 9/11 attacks—was absent from
 47

the lists. (http://www.internationalman.com/articles/trump-left-saudi-arabia-off-his-immigration-ban-

heres-the-shocking-reason) and (https://www.ft.com/content/4b705cfa-8ae8-11e6-8aa5-f79f5696c731)

Despite several efforts to heal the fractures, the “special relationship” between America and

Saudi Arabia has never recovered. They cannot afford to abandon one another — but nor do they try, or

expect, to regain the warmth of the past. There are still benefits to be derived from the alliance. Despite

mounting economic strains, the kingdom is one of the few countries that can still be described as stable

in a region of failing states and flaring violence. It retains unrivaled influence in oil markets and can

rally behind it swaths of the Muslim world. The Saudis, for their part, have found no substitute for US

diplomatic and military support, and still spend billions of dollars on American hardware (which the

US happily supplies). (https://www.ft.com/content/4b705cfa-8ae8-11e6-8aa5-f79f5696c731) In short,

the petrodollar is the glue that holds the US–Saudi relationship together.

• Is the US justified?

The Supreme Court has not addressed the extent to which the Free Exercise Clause protects

citizens abroad and the question has not received sustained attention elsewhere. The text of the Free

Exercise Clause contains no geographic limitation. Some limited support for extending free exercise

protection beyond U.S borders can be found in the Supreme Court’s decision in Reynolds v. United

States, which held that the Free Exercise Clause applies in U.S territories that are on the path of

statehood. In addition, the precolonial history of religious persecution in foreign nations might lend

some limited support to universal protection of citizens’ free exercise rights. Having escaped

persecution abroad and established free exercise rights as a fundamental right, it would be odd to then
 48

interpret the Free Exercise Clause to permit religious discrimination by U.S officials when they act

abroad.

Extending free exercise protections beyond U.S shores could lead to conflicts with foreign

religious laws and practices. Here, as elsewhere, we must situate the First Amendment in a community

of nations that has not in all instances adopted its specific values. More specifically, the United States

must determine how much respect it is prepared to gibe the laws and religious cultures of foreign

nations when it operates and regulates abroad. (The Cosmopolitan First Amendment: Timothy Zick

(https://books.google.com/books?id=2alZAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA252&lpg=PA252&dq=first

%20amendment%20in%20saudi

%20arabia&source=bl&ots=_VCiyRRo8i&sig=gYeIeBGTSNV6VdA0NyJPdQpAwVE&hl=en&sa=X

&ved=0ahUKEwiwye)

• Why is it hard to help Saudi Arabia?

When King Abdullah died, a number of publications referred to him as a "reformer." A lot of

human rights activists took umbrage with that. Ali H. Alyami, executive director and founder of the

Center for Democracy and Human Rights in Saudi Arabia (CDHR), argues it is a Western

misconception that any real reform has taken place: He argues that moves taken by King Abdullah,

such as appointing women to his Shura Council or introducing limited local democracy were cosmetic

at best. (http://www.pen-international.org/03/2016/addressing-freedom-of-expression-in-saudi-arabia-a-

case-of-double-standards-by-the-uk/)
 49

Not everyone sees it the same way. Fahad Nazer, a former political analyst at the Saudi

Embassy in Washington says that if you look longer term, things have clearly progressed – albeit

"slowly and gradually" – since the time of the Gulf War. "The whole idea of human rights itself was

seldom discussed in Saudi Arabia a few decades ago," he writes in an e-mail. "It just wasn't a part of

the Saudi political lexicon."Nazer points to the two government-affiliated human rights organizations

who have set up and the growth of Saudi awareness about the rights of migrant workers. Even Alyami,

sternly critical of King Abdullah, believes under the late monarch there was a change of perceptions

among the Saudi public, if not its leaders, about issues such as freedom of expression and the role of

democracy. (http://www.pen-international.org/03/2016/addressing-freedom-of-expression-in-saudi-

arabia-a-case-of-double-standards-by-the-uk/)

That said, as The Post's Kevin Sullivan reported recently, there does appear to have been a clear

crackdown on free speech in Saudi Arabia over the past year or so. Human rights activists link the shift

to two factors: Fears emanating from the 2011 Arab Spring protests and pressure from the country's

religious conservatives. It's unclear what direction the new King Salman will take the country.

What is surprising though, is the attitude of people towards the government’s harsh laws as

Janet Breslin-Smith, wife of former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia James B. Smith, says when she

arrived in Riyadh. She had worked on subjects related to human rights in Latin America, where she had

made an assumption that "repressive regimes hold down a population yearning for liberty, justice,

freedom.”

In Saudi Arabia, however, things seemed different. "The Saudi culture, history, theology – both

belief and practice – permeated society," Breslin-Smith says, adding that she found little desire for

democracy from most people when she moved in 2009. "The 'masses' were not mobilizing for change
 50

and the rulers – at that time – were actually the ones raising some of these issues.” (https://

www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/02/09/the-facts-and-a-few-myths-about-saudi-

arabia-and-human-rights/)

One big example of this in action is attitudes to woman's rights. Some polls have

found a majority of Saudi women not in favor of allowing Saudi women to drive. (https://

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/02/saudi-protest-driving-ban-not-popular). ”When you

have a discussion with someone's living in a village outside the big cities in Saudi Arabia, not everyone

really supports women's rights," Rajaa Al Sanea, a dentist and Saudi writer told NPR in January 27th,

2015. ”So we need to work on that before we implement any decisions that will create a drastic change

in the society.” (http://www.npr.org/2015/01/27/381942996/what-will-new-king-mean-for-women-in-

saudi-arabia)

• Signs of Modernization

- Women’s Rights 6 years ago and now - First woman CEO of a Bank

Considering that freedom, in general, in saudi Arabia is limited, and "human rights" is an almost

utopian term for the Ruling family, a step forward was made in the middle of February. A woman,

Rania Nashar was named chief executive of Samba Financial Group,becoming the first female CEO of

a listed Saudi commercial bank in line with the government's economic and social reforms.

Women, banned from driving in Saudi Arabia and subject to a system of male guardianship,

hold few top posts in the financial sector. But reforms which Saudi Arabia launched last year to make

the economy more efficient and less reliant on oil exports include boosting the role of women in the

economy. Saudi Arabia's reform plans aim to have women account for 30% of the workforce in coming
 51

years, up from the current 22%. (http://fortune.com/2017/02/20/saudi-arabia-woman-ceo-nashar-

samba/)

This is a big move towards modernization, especially since the announced of a royal decree

aimed at loosening the country’s unique “guardianship” system, existing nowhere else in the Muslim

world, that requires a woman to get the written permission of a male “guardian” (husband or brother)

before, for example, taking a job, opening a bank account, or receiving medical treatment.

“Guardianship” is part of a web of laws and customs that have kept woman separate from and

subordinate to men ever since an austere eighteenth-century religious reformer, who wanted to purify

Islam somewhat along the lines of Puritanism in the founding of Boston, entered into an alliance with

the al-Saud family that controlled a portion of the Arabian peninsula and eventually conquered all of

what is now Saudi Arabia. (https://theindianeconomist.com/women-are-free-and-bound-by-patriarchy-

in-riyadh/)

That Saudi brand of Islam featured opposition to singing, a view that photographs and movies

were idolatrous (even today, the country has no public movie theaters), and a segregation of women

that was very strict even by Islamic standards. Married women typically stayed at home, and if they

went outside wore only black and had their faces completely covered except for an eye slit. In public

places such as stores and restaurants, there were separate lines and seating areas, divided by some kind

of barrier, for men and women.

As has often been noted by an incredulous world, women in Saudi Arabia, alone in the Muslim

world (except for Taliban-controlled areas of Afghanistan), are not allowed to drive. The government

has paid for a “religious police” (separate from the regular police force) that patrol public places
 52

looking for women whose bodies were insufficiently covered or to check on the identification cards for

men and women sitting together to make sure they were married, with the power to arrest violators.

In a sort of “two steps forward, one step back” kind of way, the most dramatic of these

traditional practices seem to be gradually withering away. This has come in the context of the efforts of

Saudi rulers to keep international legitimacy, especially after the role of extremist Saudis in the Sept. 11

attacks, along with the relentless influence of the Internet and social media. The Saudi government’s

statements frequently use the word “moderate” to describe the kind of Islam it favors. Yet conservative

Islamic scholars, who still have many followers (including on Twitter!), regularly threaten the Saudi

king with resistance over liberalization measures.

Finally, some progress is being made, though there is still a lot of work that needs to be done.

More women are “only” wearing headscarves, rather than full-face covering, though for a Saudi to go

out in public with no covering at all is still illegal.

Six years ago, conferences would allowed women participants but, they were seated in a

separate room and listened to the proceedings, or participated in making statements, only through

closed-circuit television. Now, for example at the Vision 203022 conference, which is a government and

societal modernization program and seeks major changes in Saudi government, women could directly

ask questions and were in the same hall, albeit in a separate section.

(https://theindianeconomist.com/women-are-free-and-bound-by-patriarchy-in-riyadh/)

22 Vision 2030 seeks to get more Saudis working in the private sector and to get the government out of more
businesses (such as moving the healthcare system more into the private sector). For government itself, Vision
2030 is filled with performance targets for healthcare (everything from reducing obesity to speeding treatment in
hospital emergency rooms), education (standardized testing for reading and math!), along with raising the
percentage of women working from 22 percent to 30 percent, and the number of Saudis doing volunteer work
from 11,000 to a million! But given where government is now, this is going to be quite a slog, right up there with
changes in the status of women.
 53

Many still disagree that progress - even at a slow pace - is being made in Saudi Arabia. Saudi

Arabia has been elected to the UN women’s rights commission, prompting outrage from human rights

groups. The kingdom is now one of 45 countries sitting on a panel “promoting women’s rights,

documenting the reality of women’s lives throughout the world, and shaping global standards on

gender equality and the empowerment of women," according to the UN. The ultra-conservative Islamic

kingdom has a state policy of gender segregation between men and women who are not related. "Every

Saudi woman must have a male guardian who makes all critical decisions on her behalf, controlling a

woman’s life from her birth until death," said Hillel Neuer, director of UN Watch. (http://

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-un-womens-right-commission-un-watch-

middle-east-muslim-driving-clothes-a7698536.html?cmpid=facebook-post)

In March Saudi Arabia launched its first ever girls' council meeting with publicity photos

showing 13 men on stage and no women. Organizers said women were involved in the launch event,

but that they were obliged to sit in a separate room. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-

east/saudi-arabia-un-womens-right-commission-un-watch-middle-east-muslim-driving-clothes-

a7698536.html?cmpid=facebook-post) Since Saudi Arabia’s election to the HRC in 2013, it has

committed systematic human rights violations, including carrying out over 350 executions. Saudi

Arabia leads the military coalition fighting in Yemen, which has perpetrated numerous attacks in

violation of international humanitarian law, including airstrikes, which have reportedly killed over

3,500 civilians and wounded over 6,000. Saudi Arabia has used its position on the HRC to effectively

block the establishment of an independent international investigation into these atrocities in Yemen,

despite member states and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights calling for such an

investigation. Understandably, the Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GCHR) and the Arabic Network for
 54

Human Rights Information (ANHRI) call upon the United Nations General Assembly to suspend the

membership rights of Saudi Arabia in the UN Human Rights Council (HRC), and to ensure it is not

elected to another term based on its poor human rights record. (http://anhri.net/?p=169292&lang=en)

The World Economic Forum’s 2016 Global Gender Gap report ranked Saudi Arabia 141 out of

144 countries for gender equality when the United States is number 45 on the list. (http://

reports.weforum.org/global-gender-gap-report-2016/economies/#economy=SAU )23 The government

though, guarantees freedom of expression and opposes discrimination, said Custodian of the Two Holy

Mosques King Salman in March. “There is no difference between citizens or regions. All citizens are

equal in rights and duties,” the king said while receiving Bandar Al-Aiban, president of the Human

Rights Commission (HRC), Mufleh Al-Qahtani, president of the National Society for Human Rights

and other senior officials. “The pillars of this state are built on Islamic law that calls for the protection

of human rights; and governance in the country is based on justice, consultation and equality,” King

Salman said. He said the country’s laws are designed to protect rights, uphold justice and prevent

division. “The basic system of governance insists that the state should protect human rights based on

Islamic law.” (http://www.arabnews.com/saudi-arabia/news/749876)

• Conclusion

Looking at Saudi Arabia, it is apparent that the country has a number of problems dealing with

free speech and free press. Freedom of expression is not favored in this society, which is not something

most Americans are used to, however, according to the World Press Freedom Index, America is not the

23 Top 10 Global Gender Gap Index for 2016: 1) Iceland, 2)Finland, 3) Norway, 4) Sweden, 5) Rwanda, 6)
Ireland, 7) The Philippines, 8) Slovenia, 9) New Zealand, 10) Nicaragua. (http://reports.weforum.org/global-
gender-gap-report-2016/top-ten/)
 55

most “free’ country in the world when it comes to freedom of expression. Although America as a nation

is freer than Saudi Arabia, it is ranked at number 4324 on the list (https://rsf.org/en/ranking). Although

the number is lower than most would expect, the Untied States is still thought of as a satisfactory

situation. The way that America would handle the situations in Saudi Arabia is very different. For

example, Saudi Arabia detains individuals who peacefully assemble. In ideal America, this would be

considered unconstitutional, at odds with the First Amendment, and detainment would not be allowed.

The Saudi elite asking for a more modern government through two petitions would have received more

interest in America insofar as the voices of the American citizens are usually heard through their

elected representatives. The three branches of government are equally divided and the appropriate

separation of powers that is put on each branch protects citizens’ rights.

Rights in America are very different from the rights given to Saudi Arabians regarding free

speech and free press, at least as far as people know. It is apparent that Americans have more freedom

to say what they want and write what they believe as long as it does not intentionally harm anyone,

constituting libel or slander. There is a but though. Political control on free press and expression does

exist but in such a sophisticated and district way that is very difficult for the public to notice. The

examples used to illustrate both the Obama and the Trump administrations’ relationship with the media,

prove exactly this. Both administrations have tried to suppress the citizens’ right to information and

their goal was/is the same as the one the ruling family is trying so desperately to achieve: bridle the

people.

24Top 10: 1) Norway, 2) Sweden, 3) Finland, 4) Denmark, 5) The Netherlands, 6) Costa Rica, 7) Switzerland, 8)
Jamaica, 9) Belgium, 10) Iceland (https://rsf.org/en/ranking)
 56

Saudi Arabians are held under law to only write things and make comments that do not go

against the nation of Islam. The difference here is that the kingdom’s rules are open to its citizens.

Citizens in Saudi Arabia know exactly what the penalty is if they “commit” anything that goes against

their rulers and because they are not informed of their rights as human beings they obey them. In the

United States, citizens think they are completely free because they only know their rights but not the

penalties their actions might occur.

Even though America is not the freest country of the world when it comes to freedom of

expression, they surpass Saudi Arabia by a long shot. The most important step that needs to be taken is

to inform the people of Saudi Arabia regarding their rights as civilians and first and foremost, as human

beings. Any potential change starts with the people. If they do not want to alter their way of living

nobody can make it happen. This is why education is a crucial factor into forming societies. Saudi

Arabia needs an engagement with the Ministry of Education to reform their school curriculum, and in

particular their textbooks which are exported to Islamic schools all over the world, to ensure that they

promote tolerance and respect for all, whatever their color, creed or political beliefs. The United States

on the other hand needs to inform its people about how “free” they actually are. When someone does

not know their limits the consequences can be catastrophic. This is why the government also needs to

know its limitations. Informing the public with the truth, weather this truth is unsatisfactory for the

respective governments, should be protected at all times when the objective is a better society. Small

steps to more modern and transparent governments, regardless of resistance from the rulers - ruling

families or politics -, maybe one day lead Saudi Arabia’s citizens to be what they deserve to be and

Americans to truly be informed and represented by the Fist Amendment.

 57

REFERENCES

1. Novak, Jake (2017) Supreme Court just handed Trump a huge victory on travel ban. http://
www.cnbc.com/2017/06/26/supreme-court-travel-ban-ruling-a-huge-win-for-trump-
commentary.html
2. Amnesty International (2017) Saudi Arabia: Release blogger Raif Badawi, still behind bars after
five years. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2017/06/saudi-arabia-release-blogger-raif-
badawi-still-behind-bars-after-five-years/
3. Amnesty International (2017) Saudi Arabia detains rights activist who defied women’s driving ban
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2017/06/saudi-arabia-detains-rights-activist-who-defied-
womens-driving-ban/?utm_source=TWITTER-
IS&utm_medium=social&utm_content=927107901&utm_campaign=Human%20Rights
%20Defenders
4. Block, Melissa (2015) What Will New King Mean For Women In Saudi Arabia? http://www.npr.org/
2015/01/27/381942996/what-will-new-king-mean-for-women-in-saudi-arabia
5. Maclean, William (2017) Saudi Arabia is very optimistic about Trump http://
www.businessinsider.com/r-glad-to-see-obama-go-gulf-arabs-expect-trump-to-counter-iran-2017-1
6. Vernon, Pete (2017) Trump berated a CNN reporter, and fellow journalists missed an opportunity
https://www.cjr.org/covering_trump/trump_reporter_question_press_conference_cnn.php
7. Reuters, (2017) A Woman Is Named CEO of a Saudi Commercial Bank for the First Time http://
fortune.com/2017/02/20/saudi-arabia-woman-ceo-nashar-samba/
8. Giambruno, Nick (2017) Trump Left Saudi Arabia Off His Immigration Ban… Here’s the Shocking
Reason Why http://www.internationalman.com/articles/trump-left-saudi-arabia-off-his-immigration-
ban-heres-the-shocking-reason
9. Guo, Jeff (2017) Why even Fox News didn’t really defend Trump against Comey’s testimony https://
www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/9/15770986/conservative-media-fox-news-react-comey-
testimony-propaganda
10. The White House, (2017) Executive Order Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry
Into The United States https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/06/executive-order-
protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states
11. Evrensel, Ayse (2017) THE IMPACT OF THE BRETTON WOODS CONFERENCE IN 1944 http://
www.dummies.com/education/finance/international-finance/the-impact-of-the-bretton-woods-
conference-in-1944/
12.Bracey, Phil (2017) Khaled Al-Omair and Saudi Arabia’s Abusive Prison Practices http://
www.adhrb.org/2017/05/khaled-al-omair-saudi-arabias-abusive-prison-practices/
 58
13. National Secular Society, (2015) Saudi ministry: 'Free expression is an abuse of religious rights'
http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2015/08/saudi-ministry--free-expression-is-an-abuse-of-
religious-rights
14. Moore, Hannah (2017), Outrage as Saudi Arabia's football team SNUBS a minute's silence for
London Bridge terror victims ahead of World Cup qualifier against Australia because 'it is not in
keeping with their culture' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4584294/Saudi-soccer-team-
refuse-stand-London-victims.html
15. Morrison, Sara (2016) Obama undermined press freedom. Now he wants a strong media to stop
Trump? https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/30/barack-obama-press-freedom-
strong-media-stop-donald-trump
16. Bridis, Ted - Gillum, Jack (2016), Washington (AP) https://apnews.com/
697e3523003049cdb0847ecf828afd62/us-govt-sets-record-failures-find-files-when-asked
17. Baumann, Nick (2011), Locked Up Abroad—for the FBI http://www.motherjones.com/politics/
2011/07/proxy-detention-gulet-mohamed/
18.Baumann, Nick (2014), 2008 Obama Would Have Slammed 2014 Obama for This Government
Secrecy Case http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/obama-bush-state-secrets-no-fly-list/
19. ALEXANDRIA, Va. (AP) (2014), Va. man's challenge to no-fly list clears hurdle https://
www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/22/no-fly-list/4787409/
20. Gold, Hadas (2015), Risen: Obama administration is greatest enemy of press freedom http://
www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/02/risen-obama-administration-is-greatest-enemy-of-press-
freedom-202707
21. Kelman, Steve (2017), Women are free and bound by patriarchy in Riyadh https://
theindianeconomist.com/women-are-free-and-bound-by-patriarchy-in-riyadh/
22. Al-Shehri, Hamdan (2017), The significance of Trump’s visit to Riyadh http://
www.riyadhvision.com.sa/2017/05/16/the-significance-of-trumps-visit-to-riyadh/
23. Schmidt, Michael S. (2017) Comey Memo Says Trump Asked Him to End Flynn Investigation
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/us/politics/james-comey-trump-flynn-russia-
investigation.html?_r=0
24. Walters, Joanna (2017) 'Trump has declared war': journalists denounce any attack on press freedom
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/21/trump-threat-reporters-press-freedom
25. Romo, Vanessa (2017) Q&A With The 'Sassy' Teacher Of The Year About That Fan And Going Viral
http://www.npr.org/2017/06/16/533273178/q-and-a-with-the-sassy-teacher-of-the-year-about-that-
fan-and-going-viral?
utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_c
ontent=20170616
 59
26. Freking, Kevin (2016) Obama awards Presidential Medal of Freedom to Michael Jordan, Ellen
DeGeneres, others http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/obama-awards-presidential-medal-
freedom-michael-jordan-ellen-degeneres-others/
27. Zarya, Valentina (2016) President Obama Gets ‘Choked Up’ While Giving Ellen DeGeneres the
Highest Civilian Honor http://fortune.com/2016/11/23/obama-ellen-degeneres-medal/
28. Cassidy, John (2012) Obama on Free Speech: Was He Being Utopian? http://www.newyorker.com/
news/john-cassidy/obama-on-free-speech-was-he-being-utopian
29. Global Information Society Watch, (2011) Internet rIghts and democratization: Focus on freedom
of expression and association online https://www.giswatch.org/sites/default/files/
saudiarabia_gisw11_up_web_0.pdf
30. Apuzzo, Matt (2015) Times Reporter Will Not Be Called to Testify in Leak Case https://
www.nytimes.com/2015/01/13/us/times-reporter-james-risen-will-not-be-called-to-testify-in-leak-
case-lawyers-say.html
31. JUSTIA US Supreme Court (1982) NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. 458 U.S. 886 (1982) https://
supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/458/886/case.html
32. Ravel Law, (2011) Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass'n, 131 S.Ct. 2729, U.S. Supreme Court
(2011) https://www.ravellaw.com/opinions/7f61c724eb609dc6c81294bd99d6688b
33. Columbia University - Global Freedom of Expression, (2016) Cohen v. California (1969) https://
globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/cohen-v-california/
34. McBride, Alex (2006) Schenck v. U.S. (1919) https://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/capitalism/
landmark_schenck.html
35. JUSTIA US Supreme Court, (1942) Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire 315 U.S. 568 (1942) https://
supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/315/568/case.html
36. Columbia University - Global Freedom of Expression, (2012) Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942)
https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/chaplinsky-v-new-hampshire/
37. JUSTIA US Supreme Court, (1964) Roth v. United States 354 U.S. 476 (1957) https://
supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/354/476/
38. Bill of Rights Institute, (2017) NEW YORK TIMES CO. V. SULLIVAN (1964) https://
billofrightsinstitute.org/educate/educator-resources/lessons-plans/landmark-supreme-court-cases-
elessons/new-york-times-v-sullivan-1964/
39. JUSTIA US Supreme Court, (1957) Roth v. United States 354 U.S. 476 (1957) https://
supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/354/476/
40. JUSTIA US Supreme Court, (1973) Miller v. California 413 U.S. 15 (1973) https://
supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/413/15/case.html
 60
41. Vaughan, Jessica (2017), Study Reveals 72 Terrorists Came From Countries Covered by Trump
Vetting Order http://cis.org/vaughan/study-reveals-72-terrorists-came-countries-covered-trump-
vetting-order
42. Agerholm, Harriet (2017), Saudi Arabia elected to UN women's rights commission http://
www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-un-womens-right-commission-un-
watch-middle-east-muslim-driving-clothes-a7698536.html?cmpid=facebook-post
43. Wright, Robin (2017), What Donald Trump Can Expect on His Tour of the Middle East http://
www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/donald-trumps-three-religion-tour-of-the-middle-east?
mbid=rss
44. US Homeland Security, (2016), DHS Announces Further Travel Restrictions for the Visa Waiver
Program https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/02/18/dhs-announces-further-travel-restrictions-visa-
waiver-program
45. Khalaf, Roula (2016) Saudi Arabia and its toxic relationship with America https://www.ft.com/
content/4b705cfa-8ae8-11e6-8aa5-f79f5696c731?mhq5j=e1
46. Harrison, Ann (2016) Addressing freedom of expression in Saudi Arabia – a case of double
standards by the UK? http://www.pen-international.org/03/2016/addressing-freedom-of-expression-
in-saudi-arabia-a-case-of-double-standards-by-the-uk/
47. Berger, Judson (2016), Anatomy of the terror threat: Files show hundreds of US plots, refugee
connection http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/22/anatomy-terror-threat-files-show-hundreds-
us-plots-refugee-connection.html?intcmp=hplnws
48.The Arabic Network for Human Rights Information, (2016) Freedom of Expression in the Arab
World Portal http://anhri.net/?p=169292&lang=en
49. World Economic Forum, (2016) The Global Gender Gap Report 2016 http://reports.weforum.org/
global-gender-gap-report-2016/economies/#economy=SAU
50. George, Sophia (2012) Free Speech and Free Press Around the World: Saudi Arabia https://
freespeechfreepress.wordpress.com/saudi-arabia/
51. Arab News, (2015), Freedom of expression guaranteed http://www.arabnews.com/featured/news/
749876
52. Nelson, Steven (2015) Presidential Candidates Silent as Saudis Prepare to Crucify Activist http://
www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/09/24/saudi-crucifixion-of-youth-slow-to-excite-presidential-
candidates
53. UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, (2015) Saudi Arabia - Country of Concern https://
www.gov.uk/government/publications/saudi-arabia-country-of-concern/saudi-arabia-country-of-
concern#womens-rights
54. Amnesty International, (2014), Freedom of Expression: Censorship and Free Speech https://
www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/freedom-of-expression/
 61
55. Gulf Center of Human Rights, (2016) Saudi rights defender Abdulaziz Al-Shubaili sentenced to 8
years in prison https://www.ifex.org/saudi_arabia/2016/06/09/sentenced_to_eight_years_in_prison/
56. Bakshi,Vidhi - Feliciano, Pablo - Hassoun, Mohamed - Jaswa, Matthew - Ratcliffe, Keith - Sterling,
Heather - Whiteman, (1999) Matthew Freedom of Speech: U.S. and Saudi Arabia http://
courses.cs.vt.edu/cs3604/lib/Freedom.of.Speech/International/group4_files/
US_Saudi_Comparison.htm
57.Saudia Arabia Human Rights Report, (2013) http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/
220586.pdf
58. Freedom House (2016) Freedom in the World 2016: Saudi Arabia https://freedomhouse.org/report/
freedom-world/2016/saudi-arabia
59. Shakdam, Catherine (2016), The US Wraps Saudi Arabia — And Its Human Rights Atrocities — In
Its Cloak Of Exceptionalism http://www.mintpressnews.com/the-us-wraps-saudi-arabia-and-its-
human-rights-atrocities-in-its-cloak-of-exceptionalism/212913/
60. Zick, Timothy (2013) The Cosmopolitan First Amendment https://books.google.com/books?
id=2alZAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA252&lpg=PA252&dq=first%20amendment%20in%20saudi
%20arabia&source=bl&ots=_VCiyRRo8i&sig=gYeIeBGTSNV6VdA0NyJPdQpAwVE&hl=en&sa=
X&ved=0ahUKEwiwye-vr6nQAhVDVWMKHbSVCX84ChDoAQgeMAI#v=onepage&q=first
%20amendment%20in%20saudi%20arabia&f=false
61. Widelitz, Kiley (2013) A Global Blasphemy Law: Protecting Believers at the Expense of Free
Speech http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1075&context=ppr
62. Iaccino, Ludovica (2015) Saudi Arabia: Five worst human rights abuses in the reign of King
Abdullah http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/saudi-arabia-five-worst-human-rights-abuses-reign-king-
abdullah-1484889
63. Taylor, Adam (2015) The facts — and a few myths — about Saudi Arabia and human rights https://
www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/02/09/the-facts-and-a-few-myths-about-saudi-
arabia-and-human-rights/
64. Wright, Robin (2015) A Saudi Whipping http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/saudi-
whipping
65. Fisk, Robert (2016) Saudi Arabia cannot go on throwing every decent person who speaks out on
human rights into jail http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/saudi-arabia-human-rights-
imprisonment-every-decent-man-who-speaks-out-in-jail-robert-fisk-a7369276.html
66. Duffy, Matt J. (2014) Arab Media Regulations: Identifying Restraints on Freedom of the Press in
the Laws of Six Arabian Peninsula Countries http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/
viewcontent.cgi?article=1036&context=jmeil
67. Committee to Protect Journalists (2015) 10 Most Censored Countries https://cpj.org/2015/04/10-
most-censored-countries.php
 62
68. Massine, Wafa Ben (2016) The Crime of Speech: How Arab Governments Use the Law to Silence
Expression Online https://www.eff.org/pages/crime-speech-how-arab-governments-use-law-silence-
expression-online
69. Woollacott, Emma (2011) Saudi Arabia bans blogging without a license http://www.tgdaily.com/
business-and-law-features/53403-saudi-arabia-bans-blogging-without-a-licence
70. Cooper, Scott (2011) The Oil Kings: How the U.S., Iran, and Saudi Arabia Changed the Balance of
Power in the Middle East https://books.google.gr/books?
id=kP_WxbkSokIC&pg=PA11&lpg=PA11&dq=Saudi+Arabia+and+its+toxic+relationship+with
+America&source=bl&ots=sGtlXkpXp2&sig=vXLHo_krwkZPnIaX98pQqZygW1A&hl=el&sa=X
&ved=0ahUKEwjA9L6mhsDUAhVDwxQKHRgUBusQ6AEIQTAE#v=onepage&q=Saudi
%20Arabia%20and%20its%20toxic%20relationship%20with%20America&f=false
71. Abdel-Raheem, Ahmed (2013) Word to the west: many Saudi women oppose lifting the driving ban
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/02/saudi-protest-driving-ban-not-popular
72. Associated Press in Dubai, (2015) Saudi blogger receives first 50 lashes of sentence for 'insulting
Islam' https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/09/saudi-blogger-first-lashes-raif-badawi
73. The Globe and Mail, (2015) Saudi blogger Raif Badawi spared flogging again this week http://
www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/saudi-blogger-raif-badawi-spared-flogging-again-this-
week/article23001011/