Freedom

History is once again unfolding at the Milan-Cortina Winter Games as Team USA members break records and score dominant triumphs.

But as the Games move into their second week, a different and more provocative history is starting to repeat itself, casting a politically charged shadow over the event.

Champion skier Mikaela Shiffrin, snowboarder Chloe Kim, and freestyle skiers Hunter Hess and Chris Lillas are among the top athletes who have been vocal about their uneasiness in representing their home country during a period of deep political crisis revolving several volatile issues, including the violent federal crackdown in Minnesota by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and the Trump administration’s attacks nationwide on immigrants and the LGBTQ+ community.

“It brings up mixed emotions to represent the U.S. right now,” Hess said at a press conference last week. “Just because I’m wearing the flag doesn’t mean I represent everything that’s going on in the U.S.”

Trump blasted Hess’ comments in a Truth Social post, calling him “a real Loser,” adding, “He says he doesn’t represent his Country … If that’s the case, he shouldn’t have tried out for the Team, and it’s too bad he’s on it. Very hard to root for someone like this.”

Commenting on the athletes in an interview with CNN, Vice President JD Vance, who was attending the Games, said the athletes who are critical should expect “some pushback.”

Vance, who was booed when he was shown on a large screen during the opening ceremonies, added, “You’re there to play a sport, you’re there to represent the country and hopefully win a medal. Most Olympic athletes, whatever their politics, are doing a great job, certainly enjoy the support of the entire country, and I think recognize that the way to bring the country together is not to show up in a foreign country and attack the president of the United States, but it’s to play your sport and to represent the country well.”

Vice President JD Vance and his wife Usha at the Winter Olympics opening ceremony in Milan on Feb. 6. Vance said athletes should expect pushback if they criticize the country.

(Natacha Pisarenko/AP)

The outspokenness of the Winter Olympic athletes echoes a dramatic protest by Olympians Tommie Smith and John Carlos which electrified the 1968 Summer Games in Mexico City. The sprinters, who placed first and third respectively in the 200 meter race, spoke not with words but with black-gloved raised fists on the victory stand, producing one of the most iconic images in Olympic history.

As the national anthem played following their victories, Smith and Carlos expressed their anger about racial injustice in America by bowing their heads and raising their fists. The gesture provoked a seismic reaction internationally while infuriating Olympic officials who claimed Smith and Carlos used the world stage to humiliate their home country.

Smith and Carlos’ salute to Black Power is explored in HBO Max’s documentary “Fists of Freedom: The Story of the ’68 Summer Games.” The 1999 Peabody Award-winning film chronicles the fiery moment and its aftermath for Smith and Carlos, who earned both heroic praise and pointed condemnation.

George Roy, who produced and directed “Fists of Freedom,” said “there are similarities between what happened in 1968 and what’s going on now. The similarities are it’s the Olympics and the United States, and in both cases there are athletes saying they wish they could be a little prouder given the current state of things.”

U.S. athletes Tommie Smith, center, and John Carlos, right, hold their fists up in protest after winning medals at the 1968 Summer Olympic games.

(AP)

However, Roy, who has won multiple Emmys and is the founder of Jersey Line Films, added that there are marked differences.

“What Smith and Carlos did was so consequential because it affected them directly,” he said. “They were protesting along with millions in their community. Their point was that they were good enough to represent their country. But when they got back to the real world, they would have trouble getting into restaurants or finding an apartment.”

He added, “It was just more personal than what is happening now.”

In an interview included in the documentary, Smith said the gesture by him and Carlos was often misinterpreted.

“As soon as the national anthem was playing, my glove is going toward God,” said Smith. “The Black fist in the air was only in recognition of those who had gone. It was a prayer of solidarity. It was a cry for help by my fellow brothers and sisters in the country who had been shot, who had been bitten by dogs … It was a cry for freedom.”

He added, “I don’t like the idea of people looking at it as negative. It was nothing but a raised fist in the air and a bowed head to the American flag. Not symbolizing a hatred for it.”

Though he heard cheers, he also heard boos and jeers.

“Fists of Freedom” contains several interviews from sports and media figures who were present or covered the proceedings and had strong opinions about the gesture.

Bob Paul, who was the press secretary for the United States Olympic Committee in 1968, said, “[Smith and Carlos] were wrong. You are supposed to observe due order and decorum to the nth degree at every victory ceremony.”

Veteran TV sportscaster Brent Musburger, who at the time was a columnist with the Chicago American newspaper, wrote: “Airing one’s dirty laundry before the entire world during a fun and games tournament was no more than a juvenile gesture. Smith and Carlos looked like a couple of Black-skinned storm troopers.”

Incensed, Olympic committee head Avery Brundage ordered the sprinters to be expelled from the Games.

Despite the uproar, experts said the salute by Smith and Carlos was a defining moment for Black people, galvanizing the Civil Rights Movement. However, the two men encountered personal and professional difficulties when they returned home.

Both Smith and Carlos have participated in speaking engagements in recent years. They could not be reached for comment.

“We’re not Antichrists,” said Smith in “Fists of Freedom.” “We’re just human beings who saw a need to be recognized.”

A court in Hong Kong has sentenced pro-democracy media tycoon Jimmy Lai to 20 years in jail following his conviction under a sweeping national security law imposed by Beijing.

A summary document by the court on Monday said 18 years of Lai’s sentence should be served consecutively to the existing five-year jail term in his fraud case.

The 78-year-old founder of the now defunct Apple Daily has already spent more than five years behind bars and was found guilty in December on two counts of foreign collusion and one count of seditious publication.

Given his age, the prison term could keep him behind bars for the rest of his life.

Ahead of the sentencing, rights groups and Western governments called for Lai’s release, with some denouncing the case as “nothing but a charade”.

Lai’s family, lawyer, supporters and former colleagues have warned that he could die in prison as he suffers from health conditions, including heart palpitations and high blood pressure.

Before Lai left the courtroom, he looked serious, as some people in the public gallery cried.

In addition to Lai, six former senior Apple Daily staffers, an activist and a paralegal were also sentenced on Monday.

His co-defendants received jail terms between 6 years and 3 months and 10 years.

The convicted journalists are publisher Cheung Kim-hung, associate publisher Chan Pui-man, editor-in-chief Ryan Law, executive editor-in-chief Lam Man-chung, executive editor-in-chief responsible for English news Fung Wai-kong and editorial writer Yeung Ching-kee.

Ahead of the sentencing, the Committee to Protect Journalists said in a statement that Lai’s trial “has been nothing but a charade from the start and shows total contempt for Hong Kong laws that are supposed to protect press freedom”.

Reporters Without Borders said the sentencing “will resonate far beyond Jimmy Lai himself, sending a decisive signal about the future of press freedom in the territory”.

Beijing has dismissed such criticism as attempts to smear Hong Kong’s judicial system, while Hong Kong authorities maintain that Lai’s case “has nothing to do with freedom of speech and of the press”.

Lai was one of the first prominent figures to be arrested under the security law, imposed in 2020. Within a year, some of Apple Daily’s senior journalists also were arrested. Police raids, prosecutions and a freeze of its assets forced the newspaper’s closure in June 2021.

The final edition sold a million copies.

Lai’s sentencing could heighten Beijing’s diplomatic tensions with foreign governments. His conviction has drawn criticism from the United Kingdom and the United States.

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer said he had raised Lai’s case during his meeting with Chinese leader Xi Jinping in Beijing last month, adding that the discussion was “respectful”.

Lai is a British citizen.

US President Donald Trump said he felt “so badly” after the verdict and noted he spoke to Xi about Lai and “asked to consider his release”.

Lai’s daughter, Claire, told The Associated Press news agency that she hopes authorities see the wisdom in releasing her father, a Roman Catholic. She said their faith rests in God. “We will never stop fighting until he is free,” she said.

Ahead of the sentencing, Hong Kong Free Press reported that police detained a woman outside the West Kowloon court after finding an Apple Daily keychain in her possession.

At least two other activists were also searched, including Tsang Kin-shing, a member of the now-disbanded League of Social Democrats.

The sentencing comes against the backdrop of heightened restrictions on the Hong Kong press.

The Hong Kong Journalists Association said in 2024 that dozens of journalists faced “systematic and organised” harassment and intimidation, including leaked personal information and death threats.

According to Reporters Without Borders, at least 900 Hong Kong journalists lost their jobs in the four years following the enactment of the national security law in the city.

The arrest of independent journalists Don Lemon and Georgia Fort, in connection with an anti-ICE protest that interrupted a church service in Minnesota, is a test for the American people. Well, some of us. Many of us already didn’t like what we saw happening across the country. Many believed the un-American threats during the campaign and voted against this regime in 2024.

So this is a test for the Americans who — after seeing law enforcement seemingly use a 5-year-old as bait and shoot Renee Good and Alex Pretti to death — still said they’re on board with everything.

The voters who agreed with Donald Trump when he said “they’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime” back in 2015, and were OK with him 10 years later, popping up in the Epstein files and pardoning criminals — including a corrupt former Latin American leader who took bribes to let 400 tons of cocaine be smuggled into the U.S.

This isn’t a test for the voters whose biggest concern was the price of groceries or border security. This is a test for the voters who used that rhetoric about groceries and the border as cover for their unsavory feelings about immigrants. The same feelings that greeted other groups — the Jews, the Italians, the Irish — when they first came to this land. The ethnicity may be different, the conspiracy theories may be new, but at the end of the day, it’s the same old predictable story.

So, if you’re the type to cast a ballot just to own the libs, the arrest of journalists is a test for you.

On Jan. 18, protesters — believing one of the pastors at Cities Church in St. Paul was also the acting field director of the local Immigration and Customs Enforcement office — entered the building and disrupted a service. The only reason anyone outside of St. Paul knew any of this is that we have freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Because people like Lemon and Fort had the courage to be there, knowing they had 250 years of American tradition backing up their right to do their jobs. That’s the point of the 1st Amendment.

Remember, if we don’t have journalists like Fort and my friend Lemon — people who are willing to do the work required to document history, or read legislation, or hold elected officials accountable — then you no longer have freedom of the press. You have state-controlled media by way of oligarchy. That may feel good to some factions now, but the problem with “now” is that it never lasts. The Constitution, though, has a real opportunity to stick around. But it needs constant protection.

In the old days, the ultra-rich used to buy local media companies to make money or for prestige in the community. Now it feels as if many owners’ goal is to control and curb journalism. Once the free press is in a cage, free speech has little room to fly. That is the byproduct of this wave of media consolidation, whether the billionaires who are engaged in these acquisitions planned to do that or not.

In addition, historically journalism has been under attack by governments not because it was a threat to society, but because it threatens those who want to control society. The reason most presidents spar with journalists is that they want to control the narrative.

But it appears the current president wants to control reality.

The impulse to rewrite reality is why Trump established Truth Social. It’s why the administration posts AI-generated images and doctored photos.

The sense that the president can create his own truth is why one day, the administration can defend the 2nd Amendment, and the next, suggest that legally carrying a weapon is a fatal mistake. After all, if he is free to trample the 1st Amendment, what’s the problem with kicking the 2nd around whenever he needs to?

Trampling the rights of the people: that is the test — for the rapidly dwindling minority of Americans who still stand behind Trump. He’s experimenting to see if enough of his supporters will accept having their rights taken away so long as the theft appears not to hurt them.

For the many Americans who have never voted for Trump, the arrests of Lemon and Fort are not a total shock. We have seen the “Trump 2028” hats and take this thinly veiled threat against the 22nd Amendment seriously.

But for the Americans who vehemently denounced President Obama for wearing a tan suit, where exactly is “arresting journalists for doing their job” on the threat-to-democracy scale? And why do you think Trump is doing this now?

Nearly a year ago, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said she had the Epstein client list on her desk for review. Then the administration waffled and refused to turn over its files. On Friday, it finally did release 3 million pages of documents.

And on Thursday night, knowing that release was imminent, the Justice Department just happened to arrest journalists.

That doesn’t feel like a coincidence.

It doesn’t even feel like politics. It all feels like a test democracy desperately needs America to pass.

YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow

Award-winning Palestinian journalist regains account with 1.4 million followers after surprise removal from video-sharing platform.

Award-winning Palestinian journalist Bisan Owda says she has regained access to her TikTok account, one day after saying she was banned from the video-sharing platform.

Owda told Al Jazeera on Thursday that she thought that international media attention and pressure from nongovernmental organisations had helped get back her TikTok account, although now visitors and followers must type her full username to find her popular account on the site.

Owda also said that she had received a message from TikTok that many of her video posts are now “ineligible for recommendation”.

Al Jazeera was able to see Owda’s TikTok account on Friday, which has 1.4 million followers, although no new posts are visible from the Gaza-based journalist since September 2025.

Owda gained recognition internationally for posting daily videos from the war-torn Palestinian territory, where she greeted her audience in regular video diaries, saying, “It’s Bisan from Gaza – and I’m still alive” during Israel’s genocidal war on the enclave.

A contributor to Al Jazeera’s AJ+, Owda’s reporting earned her top journalism accolades, including Emmy, Peabody and Edward R Murrow awards.

Alerting followers to the removal of her account on Wednesday, Owda noted that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is suspected of war crimes in Gaza, had said that he hoped the purchase of TikTok “goes through, because it can be consequential”.

Despite a ceasefire in Gaza, Israeli attacks continue on the enclave, and last week, Israel’s ongoing strikes killed three Palestinian journalists in the territory.

According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, at least 207 Palestinian journalists and media workers have been killed in Gaza since October 2023, with the “vast majority” killed by Israeli forces.

The removal of Owda’s account also came as Israel’s top court again postponed making a decision on whether foreign journalists should be allowed to enter and report on Gaza independently of the Israeli military.

Al Jazeera contacted TikTok for comment, but a spokesperson said the company did not comment on specific accounts.

A spokesperson from TikTok told The New Arab media outlet that Owda’s account had been “temporarily restricted” in September following concerns of a potential impersonation risk.

The spokesperson said that following further review, the journalist’s account was reinstated and is now operating normally, according to The New Arab.

TikTok announced last week that a deal to establish a separate version of the platform in the United States had been completed, with the new entity controlled by investment firms, many of which are US companies, including several linked to President Donald Trump.