The ‘war on terror’ weakened the first amendment. Now we desperately need it | Jameel Jaffer
Now we desperately need itJameel JafferOver the past quarter-century, the US supreme court has repeatedly failed to protect first amendment rights. Both the executive branch and Congress introduced myriad new forms of censorship, surveillance and secrecy, all purportedly intended to keep Americans safe. The government barred the press from immigration hearings in the first weeks after 9/11.
- ▪Now we desperately need itJameel JafferOver the past quarter-century, the US supreme court has repeatedly failed to protect first amendment rights.
- ▪Both the executive branch and Congress introduced myriad new forms of censorship, surveillance and secrecy, all purportedly intended to keep Americans safe.
- ▪The government barred the press from immigration hearings in the first weeks after 9/11.
The Guardian — US files mainly under news. We currently carry 730 of its stories.
Story provenance
Source · retrieval · rights · ranking — open for full record
inspect →
Story provenance
Attribution is not the same as permission. This drawer separates discovery metadata, excerpts, WeSearch-generated summaries, reuse status, and whether the publisher receives the visit. Nothing here claims a legal grant the publisher has not made.
Record
| Original publisher | The Guardian — US |
| Canonical URL | https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/sep/11/9-11-war-on-terror-first-amendment |
| Publication time | Fri, 11 Sep 2026 16:00:09 GMT |
| Retrieval time | 2026-09-11T16:17:50.960Z |
| Last seen | 2026-09-11T16:17:50.960Z |
| Headline source | Publisher (no WeSearch rewrite) |
| Excerpt source | publisher body |
| Excerpt method | First ~120 words (~800 chars) of extracted publisher body, fair-use limited. |
| Summary | WeSearch · cerebras-chat (WeSearch summarizer) |
| Summary source text | contentText |
| Citation coverage | Summary is a WeSearch-generated derivative; primary citation is the original publisher URL. |
| Cluster | LLKjZdwowjPw · 1 stories |
| Cluster logic | Grouped by semantic title/content similarity across sources within a rolling window. Same-publisher template collisions are excluded from coverage comparison. |
| Ranking reason | Story pages are not engagement-ranked. Hub feeds use recency, with optional source-diversified chronological ordering (cap consecutive stories per source). No personalized ranking. |
| Publisher visit | Yes — open original |
| Substitutes article? | No — link-out required for full text |
Rights status (four layers)
WeSearch handling by dimension
| Indexing | May the item be indexed (stored, ranked, made findable)? | Allowed |
| Snippet | May a short excerpt of the publisher's text be shown? | Allowed |
| AI summary | May WeSearch generate its own short summary of the article? | Limited |
| Retrieval / RAG | May the content be exposed for third-party retrieval-augmented generation? | Not asserted |
| Model training | May the content be used to train AI models? | Not asserted |
| Commercial reuse | May the content be reused commercially? | Not permitted |
Basis: Derived from the published RSS/Atom feed. Contact: [email protected]. Reviewed: 2026-07-24.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
‘There’s no question that the court’s record during the war on terror has strengthened the hand of our authoritarian president and weakened our own.’ Photograph: Shawn Thew/EPAView image in fullscreen‘There’s no question that the court’s record during the war on terror has strengthened the hand of our authoritarian president and weakened our own.’ Photograph: Shawn Thew/EPAOpinionUS supreme courtThe ‘war on terror’ weakened the first amendment. Now we desperately need itJameel JafferOver the past quarter-century, the US supreme court has repeatedly failed to protect first amendment rights.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at The Guardian — US.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from The Guardian — US
