By Rene Reyes

Free speech is under siege. This is not to say that all speakers and viewpoints are at equal risk—some voices receive support and protection, while others are subject to threats and suppression.  Pro-Palestinian speech falls into the latter category.  Critics argue that there has long been a “Palestine Exception” to free speech, but efforts to silence pro-Palestinian advocacy on university campuses and elsewhere have dramatically increased since Israel began its assault on Gaza in October of 2023 in response to incursions by Hamas militants.  Many supporters of Israel contend that such restrictions on pro-Palestinian advocacy are justified, and have suggested that there is a double standard between racism and antisemitism at play when universities fail to condemn at least some forms of pro-Palestinian speech. The implication seems to be that anti-Black and Brown speech would never be tolerated on campuses, and that racialized minorities have been a special favorite of legal and institutional protections against hateful expression. The problem with this argument is that it is demonstrably false.  Indeed, this Essay argues that free speech doctrines have consistently functioned to give white people the liberty to engage in hateful speech and to deny Black, Brown, and other racialized individuals the kinds of protections from fear and harm that supporters of Israel are now demanding.  In other words, the Palestine Exception to free speech is real—and it is part of a deeper legal tradition that has enshrined free speech as an element of white privilege.

Virginia Law Review ,Vol 111, June 2025.

By Patrick Butchard, Philip Loft

Genocide is a crime under international law, according to the United Nations General Assembly. The 1948 Genocide Convention, which has 153 parties requires party states to punish those responsible for genocide. The convention also requires states to prevent genocide from occurring. While it does not set out how they must do this, judgments on cases before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) have clarified some details of the obligation. What are a state’s obligations in international law? Judicial decisions from the International Court of Justice suggest that: • States are required to try to prevent genocide, but they do not breach their obligation if they fail. – They must still try even if they think their actions will not succeed

– What counts as a reasonable attempt at preventing genocide will depend on a state’s circumstances. • States must take action to prevent genocide as soon as they become aware there is a serious risk of it. • Genocide must actually occur for a state to be in breach of its obligation to prevent it. • Measures to prevent genocide might include engaging with bodies of the UN, such as the Security Council, or directly with other states. • States are unlikely to be allowed under international law to use military force against another state in an attempt to prevent genocide.

London: UK Parliament House of Commons Library, 2026. 25p.

By Karen Muller,  Astrid Gonzaga Dionisio, Sanghyun Park

The “Online Knowledge and Practice of Children and Parents in Indonesia: Baseline Study 2023” highlights that most children in Indonesia use the internet daily, primarily for socializing and entertainment. However, they face significant risks, including exposure to inappropriate content, cyberbullying, and online sexual exploitation and abuse. The study reveals that many children and parents lack adequate online safety education, with only 37.5% of children having received information on how to stay safe online. Additionally, 42% of children have felt uncomfortable or scared due to online experiences, and 50.3% have seen sexual images on social media.UNICEF Indonesia is actively addressing these issues by supporting the government in strengthening the legal framework for child online protection and enhancing integrated services for victim support. UNICEF empowers children, parents, and teachers to promote safe online behavior and strengthen law enforcement capabilities to detect, investigate, and prosecute cases of online child exploitation. UNICEF also focuses on generating evidence to inform policies and practices, aiming to create a safer online environment for children in Indonesia. Their efforts include co-creating campaigns with children and youth to raise awareness about online risks and engaging with businesses to promote responsible conduct for the rights and well-being of children, 202

By Briana A. Scott, Sarah M. Stilwell, Zaida V. Pearson, Marc A. Zimmerman

Students of color are disciplined for behavioral infractions at higher rates than white students in K-12 schools in the USA. The consequences of racism in K-12 schools include mental health problems, school dropout, and disproportionate disciplinary practices, leading to the school-to-prison pipeline. Many school personnel implement interventions to address student behavior rather than racism and other implicit biases. Furthermore, culturally relevant practices are imperative to address the root causes of racial disparities in student discipline. For these reasons, a systematic and comprehensive review of the published literature on school-based interventions in the USA (including public and private K-12 schools) was conducted to identify interventions to remedy racial disparities in school discipline, as well as the research designs used to test their efficacy. The final sample includes 48 studies that directly or indirectly attempt to address the race discipline gap. There were only three studies that reduced race disparities in school discipline with a culturally relevant intervention. Future researchers may consider the importance of the school’s cultural context and intervention audience when developing and testing efforts to reduce racial disproportionality