Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Canceled and Silenced: From Instagram Ban to Fears of Censorship

Canceled and Silenced: From Instagram Ban to Fears of Censorship

A civil rights attorney reflects on being banned from Instagram, rising censorship, and her parents’ escape from Cuba—drawing chilling parallels between past authoritarian regimes and growing threats to free speech in America.

Getty Images, filo

I have often discussed my parents' fleeing Cuba, in part, for free speech.

The Washington Post just purged one third of their team, including reporters who are stationed in Ukraine and the middle east, reporting on critical international affairs.


A Washington Post reporter's home was raided by the FBI.

Don Lemon, a former CNN anchor, was arrested.

Instagram banned me - twice.

I became a feminist in the 90s (I was probably one sooner, but didn’t know the meaning). I was an immediate fan of Ms. Magazine, specifically the principle that the magazine had no advertisements because of the sexism, expectations, and pressure that women feel by looking at unrealistic images of models.

I immediately subscribed to the notion to try to do everything I can to stay away from advertising and from propaganda.

For the same reason I love Ms. Magazine; I hate social media. It is not real. It creates a semblance of perfection or pressure to keep up with standards that are not accurate or possible. It allows bullying. It causes depression in teens. It violates privacy and sells your data. The list goes on.

But social media can feel like a necessary evil. Most places I go, people connect over their Instagram accounts. Businesses advertise, and social action is taken on social media.

I created an Instagram account using my business email, hoping to highlight the work of my organization and to stay apprised of things that were happening for survivors across the country. A couple of weeks into having an account, never having posted, using a professional headshot and my professional email - I was banned.

I had to prove that I was real. I had to upload a picture of my driver’s license. I had to upload a copy of my passport. And when that still wasn’t enough, I had to record an image of me looking at the camera and looking to the left, to the right, up, and down. I remained banned. Silenced.

I went to an event later that week where a CEO of a migrant farm worker immigrant rights group told me that her account was banned. I felt like there was a connection there and wondered if we were being monitored and targeted.

I filed an appeal. Nothing. I emailed Instagram. Nothing. I ChatGPT’d “how do I file an appeal with Instagram.” Nothing.

My friend said, "What did you do?” Nothing--except follow groups pursuing survivors and social justice.

A few months later, I thought I would attempt again. I was feeling disconnected from not having access to Instagram. Using an email I had previously used for a now deactivated Facebook account, I created a new Instagram account.

I started following the protests of the national strike for January 30, and that same day, January 30, 2026, I got banned. I again uploaded a video of me turning my head to the left, to the right, up and down. I uploaded my driver’s license and my passport, and I was told I had violated community standards - permanently banned, again.

Silenced. I have never posted one thing. I once reposted something from my organization. I think my account lasted about a week.

Now I wonder: do I have free speech? I am not sure if I was banned because I lead a nonprofit, but outspoken leaders across the country are being silenced. Reporters are being arrested and attacked. Legal observers have been assassinated. First responders were assassinated. Nonprofit leaders silenced.

I can’t help but see a pattern.

My job as a lawyer is to advise people of their rights. We are proud at Survivor Justice Center to give “voice and choice.” We do not tell our clients what to do, but provide them with their legal options. This is a core tenent of being an attorney and a guiding principle to my beliefs.

As an attorney, I must give this advice: it is imperative we continue to speak out and exercise our right to free speech. We must not be complicit. We must continue to fight for those rights of others, even when our voices are silenced.

However, for the first time, I feel afraid to be on the streets exercising this right. I have asked my board for a plan if I am arrested. Was banning me on Instagram only the start? Am I now a target due to my job, my beliefs, or the fact that I’m a daughter of immigrants?

I encourage my staff to speak out against injustice; when my friends express hesitancy at attending rallies or gatherings, I remind them of their rights and encourage them to utilize them. But the recent silencing of critics has made me doubt my own advice. Should I encourage people to use their voice when I know the potential consequences?

My parents fled a communist dictatorship where their rights to free speech were stripped. I have a staff member who was born into a regime with a dictator in Chile; she recently remarked that what we are facing now feels like what she experienced and what her family fled.

The stories of my parents' escape from Cuba linger in my head; I’m reminded of their struggles when I see news of people being punished just for standing up for what they believe in. Even now, journalists in Cuba face harsh penalties for sharing the truth, often dismissed as “fake news” (sound familiar?).

The reality of my parents' past and my future are colliding, and it’s terrifying.

Carmen McDonald is an attorney who serves as executive director of the Survivor Justice Center; she is a former Public Voices Fellow of the OpEd Project and Blue Shield California.


Read More

President Trump answers questions from reporters.

U.S. President Donald Trump answers questions from reporters before boarding Air Force One on August 21, 2026 in Joint Base Andrews, Maryland.

(Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Trump’s White House Press Ban Violates 1st Amendment

The principle is simple. Just like politicians are not supposed to pick their voters, government officials don’t get to pick the reporters who cover them.

If they did, the First Amendment would be meaningless. and we would no longer live in anything resembling a constitutional republic. That is why President Trump’s September 18 announcement that he is banning reporters from CNN, MSNow, and Politico from the White House is so dangerous.

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

The CLARITY Act crypto bill failed a procedural vote on Sept. 15, but it could return. Here's what it does, who would regulate crypto, and the Trump angle.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

The CLARITY Act

The CLARITY Act

The CLARITY Act, which failed in a procedural vote on Sept. 15, and a new venture by the Trump family’s World Liberty Financial cryptocurrency company made us think it was time to write about the cryptocurrency legislation. Even though it’s not currently active, the bill could come back.

Keep ReadingShow less
When Money Trumps Life

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during the 81st session of the United Nations (U.N.) General Assembly at U.N. Headquarters on September 22, 2026 in New York City.

Alexi J. Rosenfeld/Getty Images

When Money Trumps Life

Last week at the United Nations, Donald Trump showed the world just how little he values human life. In a single speech, he rattled off a laundry list of “hoaxes” to write off: climate change, AI, “Russia hoax,” “Ukraine hoax,” and more. Climate change, AI, and modern warfare all pose existential threats to civilization as we know it, and yet our president seems hellbent on gaslighting our fears while accelerating problems that threaten our survival. What would make a person behave in such a self-sabotaging way? Well, perhaps we should, as they say, follow the money.

Earlier this month, the UN warned that Earth is already 1.4°C hotter than before the industrial age and set to blow past the 1.5°C limit in the next few years. The World Health Organization projects that such warming will cause roughly 250,000 additional deaths a year starting in 2030. Any leader who values human life should recognize this as the existential threat it is and change course. Instead, Trump has pulled the U.S. out of the UN's founding climate treaty, and his EPA scrapped the scientific finding underpinning federal limits on greenhouse gas emissions. Meanwhile, in the first six months since launching his war in Iran, Trump's nine largest oil and gas holdings gained up to $4.4 million.

Keep ReadingShow less
 U.S. President Donald Trump speaks from the Cross Hall of the White House on April 1, 2026 in Washington, DC.

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks from the Cross Hall of the White House on April 1, 2026 in Washington, DC.

Pool/Getty Images

How Presidential Primetime Addresses Shape Public Trust in Democratic Institutions

A question still being studied is the effects on public trust when the head of the Executive casts doubt on the institutions that run elections, enforce laws, and decide legal disputes. The President of the United States is arguably the most powerful man in the world. He is the commander in chief of a nation #1 in nominal gross domestic product as well as #1 in military power, budget, and spending as of 2026. The actions he takes spew ripple effects across the world and follow many generations. A way you can measure the executive's power can also be measured in how much influence his speeches have on the markets, opinions of the masses, news outlets, lawmakers, social media reactions, etc. His framing of an issue can shape the next day’s political conversation.

These conversations become extremely dangerous/consequential when discussing a principle as embedded in our country as Democracy. In his July primetime speech, Trump continued to pedal the claims about election security and argued for stricter voting rules. He continued to portray the country as facing a moment of corruption and uncertainty, followed by presenting himself as the one prepared to restore order. The address continued with repeated claims about his loss in the 2020 election that have not been supported by the evidence compiled over years of investigation by many parties. Professional reviews, audits, and courts have yet to find significant evidence of foul play substantial enough to influence the outcome of that election.

Keep ReadingShow less