To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

On July 22, 2026 three federal judges in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta – Chief Judge William Pryor, Judge Jill Pryor and Judge Andrew Brasher – heard oral arguments in the appeal of the 2024 unconstitutional conspiracy conviction of the Uhuru 3.

A Tampa jury had acquitted 84-year-old veteran African liberation fighter Chairman Omali Yeshitela and two white reparations organizers Penny Hess and Jesse Nevel of serving as secret agents of Russia, but contradictorily convicted them on the secondary false charge of conspiracy to be secret agents of Russia – all because they had expressed opinions opposing the U.S. support for Ukraine along with advocating for reparations to African people and charging the U.S. with genocide in its treatment of Black people.

This precedent-setting anti-colonial free speech fightback has won international and national support from First Amendment defenders and social justice activists from across the political spectrum, including the National Lawyers Guild, the Civil Liberties Defense Center, the National Conference of Black Lawyers, the Center for Political Innovation, the U.S. Peace Council, U.S. Hands Off Cuba Committee, former NYC Councilman Charles Barron, Dr. Cornel West, Jimmy Dore, Max Blumenthal, Dr. Gerald Horne and Tucker Carlson.

Trending

Electing the First Black Speaker of the House Depends on You

During the 2024 trial, the Uhuru 3’s legal team convinced the jury that the opinions expressed by Yeshitela were his own and not directed by the Russian government by showing print and video evidence of Yeshitela’s activism spanning decades.

Chairman Omali’s published writings, showing a consistent worldview of African Internationalism and anti-colonialism, can be read in 58 years of The Burning Spear newspaper, freely available in the University of Florida’s digital newspaper collection.

In the past five decades he has traveled to seventeen countries to speak to audiences, including in 2019 as the winning presenter at the Oxford Union’s “Africa Debate”. He has been interviewed and featured on platforms such as CNN, Democracy Now, Al Mayadeen, Press TV and countless national and international radio stations, podcasts and newspapers.

The DOJ had argued that the Uhuru 3 are engaged in spreading disinformation “even if the information is true but it makes the government look bad.”

In their earlier Motion to Dismiss, attorneys for the Uhuru 3 argued, “The government here is using a federal criminal statute to prosecute members of an activist group for political speech and activism in opposition to U.S. foreign policy. In so doing, this prosecution strikes at the heart of the First Amendment.”

“This is the first case in which the government has used the statute that criminalizes unregistered foreign agents (18 USC §951) to target political or dissenting speech. In short, if this case is allowed to go forward, it will reverse more than eight decades of Supreme Court precedent that prohibits the government from targeting dissenting political speech and dissent.”

The appeal of the Uhuru 3’s false conviction on the lesser charge of conspiracy was filed a year ago on June 16, 2025. It argues three points, that:

1. The lower court’s finding that lawful political speech loses its First Amendment protections when the speaker is alleged to be a Russian agent, should be reversed.
2. The government presented insufficient evidence of a conspiracy as it presented no evidence, as conceded by the government’s own case agents, that the APSP defendants 1) acted or agreed to act under the direction or control of Ioniv or the AGMR, or 2) knew of the registration requirement, essential elements of a conspiracy.
3. The jury was misled to believe that it could convict the defendants on the conspiracy charge despite the absence of evidence as to the underlying crime.

More than 80 Uhuru 3 supporters packed the Atlanta courtroom again on July 22, spilling into an overflow room where attendees watched the proceedings on closed circuit TV.

Notable figures attending the hearing included Attorney Mawuli Davis, National Co-Chair of the National Coalition of Black Lawyers; Belinda Parker Brown of Louisiana United International; Efia Nwangaza, veteran of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and Malcolm X Center for Self-Determination; John McCarthy of the Center for Political Innovation; Mark Friedman of the U.S. Hands off Cuba Committee and Paulette Dauteuil of the Jericho Movement and Leonard Peltier Ad Hoc Defense Committee.

Not a “content neutral” prosecution

The oral argument hearing took less than thirty minutes. Uhuru 3 Attorney Leonard Goodman began: “This is a novel case. It’s the first time that Section 951 has been used to directly target speech. The indictment does not allege that any of these defendants conspired to commit espionage or destroy property. Rather the indictment charges a conspiracy to disseminate pro-Russian political speech, which is described in the indictment as Russian “propaganda and disinformation”.

Chief Judge Pryor interjected, “This indictment seems to be necessarily to implicate speech, but the real question is whether the offense, that is, the failure to register for acting as an agent of a foreign government, is content neutral? It seems to me that it is. It may be that the speech activities on behalf of that foreign state would be evidence that you are an agent that hasn’t registered.

He went on to ask, “imagine for me a hypothetical where the individual was acting as an agent on behalf of the state of Israel and was advocating the attack on Iran, which the United States government was involved in as well and was supportive of the United States activities as well. It seems to me that would be an offense under this statute in that situation just as much as in this situation.”

Attorney Goodman tried to expose the fallacy of “content neutrality” by citing the think tanks in Washington D.C. that receive millions of dollars from U.S. allies who are not indicted as unregistered foreign agents, but he was cut off by the judges.

Some court observers were concerned that the judges’ comments appeared to favor the prosecution. But speaking to reporters as the Uhuru 3 and supporters emerged from the Atlanta Federal Courthouse, Chairman Omali said, “The court recognized there are some issues that need resolution. Attorney Leonard Goodman did an extraordinary job. The prosecution did not have a reasonable explanation about why we were facing conspiracy charges when the jury had found us not guilty on the foundational charge.”

He went on to say, “Nobody in this country has a connection to the struggle for free speech more than Black people. When the Bill of Rights was adopted in 1791, African people were property. We had no rights. There was no assumption it was for us. This is what I’m hoping that, particularly white people, would come to understand. When they came for us around free speech issues that we never had, it’s not us they’re coming for, they’re coming for you. They’re coming for everyone.”

Chairman Yeshitela’s lawyer, Attorney Ade Griffin declared, “We’re here today to change the law for generations to come. And that’s an extremely hard thing to do.”

At the Debrief

Uhuru 3 supporters then walked to the nearby Georgia State University College of Law for a debrief discussion forum and lunch co-sponsored by the Black Law Students Association and the Davis Bozeman Johnson Law group.

Attorney Leonard Goodman shared his reflections on the hearing. “When federal prosecutors want to prosecute some poor old lady for a drug conspiracy because her son was selling drugs in the house and she was ignoring the signs, they ask for what’s called an ‘ostrich instruction’ which is you can’t put your head in the sand and not see what’s going on around you.

“Well, it should have been applied to the judges as well because it was a little shocking to hear them suggest that we are going to find that this was a content-neutral prosecution. ‘We weren’t going after these people because they are pro-Russia and it just so happens that we raided their home three months after Russia invaded Ukraine and Omali started giving speeches saying we shouldn’t be fueling this war by sending bombs to Ukraine. It’s just a coincidence.’”

“President Trump took how many millions from Miriam Adelson, a dual citizen, who was born in Israel and a direct quid pro quo. And I say this as an American Jew, bar mitzvah’d in Chicago. If the decision goes against us, we’ll be filing a petition for rehearing and if that’s denied we will go to the Supreme Court.”

Angela Reaney agreed, “If we lose today, it just means that we have an opportunity to make a bigger impact in the Supreme Court.”

Attorney Mutaqee Akbar, legal counsel for Uhuru 3 member Jesse Nevel, is the son of legendary African psychologist Na’im Akbar. He agreed that, “It’s clear that you all were targeted because of what you were saying. But the same doesn’t apply when people advocate on behalf of Israel. Think about AIPAC. They don’t say the same thing when people advocate for other European nations that go along with what the United States says, that go along with colonialism. It’s only when you speak against what this government says you shouldn’t speak against. The fact that it’s not right just means we need to keep fighting. The struggle continues.”

Chairman Omali discussed the vanguard role of the African anti-colonial struggle in keeping democratic space open for everyone. “It was not the struggle against facism that destroyed McCarthyism or kept society open. It was the struggle of Black people against colonialism that kept the society open.”

Some supporters who attended the court hearing expressed frustration and asked why the judges were allowed to interrupt and take up the time that was supposed to be allotted to the defense lawyers.

Attorney Goodman replied, “They have the power. We don’t.”

Chairman Yeshitela added, “Yet.”

More info at www.handsoffuhuru.org

The post Fed court to decide landmark First Amendment case appeared first on Chicago Defender.

Based on reporting by Chicago Defender.

bpusa-syndication

Posts by bpusa-syndication

(Black Press USA Newswire) – Caitlin Clark is more than a WNBA player; she has become a tool of weaponization against Black women. And now the federal government is involved.

Led by Texas Rep. August Pfluger, 11 Republican lawmakers signed a letter to WNBA Commissioner Cathy Engelbert, threatening to have the Department of Justice investigate the league because fouls against Clark “may be racially motivated.”

“As Commissioner, you have an obligation to ensure that every player competes in a safe and professional environment, both on and off the court, free from violence, discrimination, or retaliation. If discrimination or retaliation is occurring and creating a hostile work environment, we support any appropriate investigation by the Department of Justice, the Department of Labor, or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. If true, such conduct could constitute violations of federal civil rights laws,” the letter stated.

The letter creates a false narrative and is irresponsible and dangerous.

Stephanie Christmas, a former women’s basketball player at Georgia Southern University, has remained a WNBA fan since its inaugural season in 1997. Christmas has never seen politicians use their platforms to sway the league’s direction.

“If you want only one player to play the game, that’s not basketball anymore,” Christmas shared. “I don’t think that they should be putting any legislation in place. They are making it worse for the players and the WNBA game.” ​

The people who are using Clark as a tool couldn’t care less about what occurs in between the lines of a basketball court. Statistically, Clark is a decent shooter and above-average passer, but she lacks offensive efficiency and is a liability on defense. Her most staunch defenders are not basketball enthusiasts; instead, they view Clark as a symbol to further their hatred for Black women.

Every moment of discomfort Clark appears to face on the court becomes an opportunity for her supporters to unleash vile and racist language against the alleged perpetrator. If Clark is fouled hard, engages in trash talk with an opponent, or receives what she views as an unfair call by a referee, her defenders are incited to unleash their wrath. ​

During a tightly contested match between Clark’s Indiana Fever and Phoenix Mercury in June, the Mercury’s Alyssa Thomas and Clark were on the court battling for a loose ball. Thomas’ arm briefly pressed against Clark’s neck during the scramble, but no foul was called. Following the game, Thomas was issued a flagrant one and suspended for one game by WNBA officials. The play triggered Clark’s supporters, and they aimed racial slurs and death threats at Thomas. Thomas responded by calling out WNBA commissioner Engelbert for not protecting athletes in the league.

“We still have yet to hear anything from Cathy. It’s no surprise,” Thomas shared in a press conference after her suspension. “You can see ​what’s being said on social media. It’s unfortunate, but as ​usual, she remains silent. That’s unfortunate when our lives are being threatened.”

It was only after Thomas’ statement that Engelbert responded to the threats sparked by Clark’s supporters.

“The WNBA vehemently condemns any and ​all forms of hate,” Engelbert said in a statement. “The safety ​and well-being of everyone in our community is always the league’s top priority. We ‌are aware of Alyssa Thomas’ comments, and what she and her teammates have experienced is completely unacceptable and not representative of the WNBA community.”

Weeks later, Chelsea Gray of the Las Vegas Aces faced racial animus following a simple foul call that went against Clark. While driving to the basket, Gray was fouled on the arm by Clark, who collapsed to the ground and held her stomach as if she was in pain. Clark yelled at the referee, claiming that Gray had hit her, but video replay proved that Gray never initiated contact with Clark.

But an otherwise normal basketball play led to Gray enduring racial slurs and harassment. Following the game, Gray reposted a screenshot on Instagram of a man using a racial slur against her, and she wrote, “People act like we make this s— up.” ​

The post went viral, and the man, who worked for Hilton Grand Vacations, was fired within days.

Gray responded to the ordeal in a press conference, revealing that she and other WNBA players have faced ongoing harassment.

“Enough is kind of enough,” Gray said. “These messages are not the first time. It’s not. There was other stuff, too. I just decided to share that one. This time I got fed up with it, and I just decided to share it. And maybe I don’t share the other ones, but I know people will think twice.”

Clark never asked to become a symbol for those who aim hatred at Black women, but is she doing enough to distance herself from the position?​

She issued a statement after hearing of the harassment Thomas experienced. “The harassment, the hate. None of that is OK,” Clark said. “There should never be a question of character, as I’ve always stood up here and said that, and that’s truly what I believe; that’s how I was raised. So, none of that is okay, and I don’t want anyone to experience that.” ​

It’s similar to another statement Clark made in 2025 after Angel Reese faced racial slurs while playing against the Fever in Indianapolis. “There’s no place for that in our game, there’s no place for that in society,” Clark said. “Certainly, we want every person who comes into our arena, whether player or fan, to have a great experience. I appreciate the league doing that. I appreciate that the Fever organization has been at the forefront of that.”

A competitive moment between Clark and Reese during the 2023 NCAA Championship game sparked a cultural division that followed both players to the WNBA. Their star power has coincided with the league’s recent emergence, but the overall success continues to be marred by the divisiveness initiated by Clark’s supporters. ​

“I would like for to have addressed her fans,” Christmas said. “Her fans are making threats, and they’re making racist comments. And it’s only racial coming from her fans. They don’t even really love the game. They just love her and then try to make it about race. At some point. I would like to see her stand against her fans when she sees them attacking some people that are on the court.”

Beyond her polarizing fanbase, Clark has also been accused of presenting herself as a victim and throwing tantrums on the court when things don’t go her way. During a recent game against the Golden State Valkyries, Clark used her hand to create distance while driving for a layup against the Valkyries’ Kiah Stokes. Clark fell to the ground after the layup and began berating referee Gerda Gatling while yelling, “Give me a f—-g call! I got fouled five times!” Replay video revealed that Stokes initiated no contact, and Gatling showed restraint by not giving Clark a technical foul.

The clip of Clark’s tantrum went viral, and she faced backlash online for her negative attitude.

“Caitlin Clark is a liar and the most dangerous type of white woman,” @mama4obama wrote on X. “One whose lies get Black women death threats. She wasn’t even touched and should have been thrown out of the game for the way she behaved toward the ref.”

The Caitlin Clark experience serves as a microcosm of America’s divided socio-political atmosphere. She has been chosen as a figurehead for hatred and division while her Black colleagues on the court remain prime targets.

It’s become an inescapable stain for a league that fought for years to garner interest and respect.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the writer and not necessarily those of the AFRO.

The post How Black WNBA players became collateral damage in the Caitlin Clark culture war appeared first on AFRO American Newspapers.

Based on reporting by Afro-American – Washington.

bpusa-syndication

Posts by bpusa-syndication