In the wake of the brutal Hamas massacre, there have been calls to silence grotesque speech against our community. It’s understandable. But it’s wrong.
A few comments on your thoughtful article. First, as you know, the First Amendment does not apply to private universities or companies. So we are free to debate its applicability to these institutions. Second, while one can take a position that a college should allow unrestricted free speech however offensive it may be, the reason Penn and other colleges are being subjected to such criticism is that they have not applied this policy on a consistent basis. As just one example, it was reported the female swimmers at Penn who objected to a female identifying biological male competing with them and showering in the women’s locker room displaying full male genitalia were ordered by the school to cease their complaints. The reality is that colleges and universities across the country have systematically restricted free speech on campuses with respect to positions taken that do not correspond to their prevailing ideology. An absolutist free speech position like the one you are taking must be consistently applied. Third, as a former Trustee of two colleges, I think your position will not be acceptable to college communities. Appropriately, they argue for distinguishing between “free speech” and “hate speech”. There have been numerous abuses of this position (“cancel culture”) but I believe it is possible to craft a sensible definition of hate speech. Advocacy of terrorism, antisemitism or racism could be prohibited under clear and consistently applied standards. Finally, I support private entities’ right to choose not to employ persons whose expressed views are abhorrent. There is no legal (or practical) basis for restricting their right to set standards of acceptable discourse in their institutions so long as these policies do not violate civil rights laws.
Wow, tolerating offensive or unpopular speech is OK now? Just want to know if it is OK now to say that George Floyd was a drug addled repeat offender violently resisting arrest and his death is mostly his own fault?
Yes, it would be OK as long as they follow the same safety etc regulations that all others do. AND it gives decent people a chance to laugh at them and hoot and hollar at them for the fools they are.
It is better to have those people saying their thoughts so we know who the racists/terrorists etc are, rather than having them slinking around like KKKers behind their sheets.
Isn't it amazing how many of these "brave warriors for social justice" are hiding behind face masks or have a keffiyeh (aka "hipster swastika") carefully wrapped around their faces? It says a lot about the supposed courage of their convictions that they're hiding their identity from their parents, employers/future employers, and the public.
The authors are simply suicidal Jews. The reality on college campuses, and now within all US institutions, is that there is NO free speech. Speech that doesn't fit the woke left orthodoxy is deemed "hate speech" and those who speak it risk cancellation: loss of job, career, status and possibly physical harm. Those running these schools and institutions do NOT protect such speech.
Where were the authors when this reality took hold over the last 25 years?
The authors site the standard: "....There must be reasonable ground to believe that the danger apprehended is imminent. . . . Only an emergency can justify repression.” For many years now there have been many cases of anti-Semitic and woke left speech that result in violence on campuses. Not only do the violent perpetrators go free, but of course the speakers are never punished.
The authors live in some utopian dreamland, sticking to there noble ideals while we are awash in the violence from the woke left and their anti-Semitic brethren who love Hamas.
My experience watching the anti-Israel protests at the University of Illinois at a graduate school was that:
(i) they were not following safety regulations - they did not have permits and they were often violent, attacking otherwise peaceful pro-Israel students and their property,
(ii) the police watching the spectacle couldn't care less and only got involved if they thought someone was going to get seriously hurt.
So, yes. Free speech only works when it is uniformly and consistently applied.
I can’t remember the details, but I had heard of a small town in the South that several years (or maybe even a decade ago?) that had the dilemma of a Neo-Nazi group that wanted to hold a march through downtown. The town said, yes you have the right to do that. But they placed barriers around the march path such that anyone not involved in the march couldn’t easily see it. I thought that was a brilliant way to handle it.
The point is, these groups WANT to cause a ruckus. They want to cause a scene— they want to provoke you to cancel them, ban them, or otherwise shut them down so that they can turn around and cry “foul” against free speech rights. And of course it isn’t fair, these people don’t play fair. But we can’t lower to their playing field. Rather than give them the attention that they desire, let them have their free speech and IGNORE it. Let them hang themselves by their own words and actions, and don’t draw more attention to them than necessary.
You just did. Plenty of people were saying just that in plenty of on line venues, as well as physical ones as well. They had every right to do so and clearly did.
Hate speech, specifically racist speech, has been redefined to include libertarian positions or conservative positions that had been considered reasonable not long ago. I do not share your enthusiasm that standards on defining "hate speech" would be clear and consistent.
Great clarification - I think the double standard that universities apply is a huge sticking point. And I believe donors withdrawing monetary support is an effective and fair way to put universities on notice.
Well said. While I like to think that I'm a free speech absolutist, even I realize that there has to be some curbs on it. So I agree that in theory there can be carefully crafted speech restrictions.
However, I believe that this will remain just a theory because in my opinion, there is no way that these "restrictions" can ever be enforced in a fair and equitable manner on college campuses. Ideology, feelings, and the heckler's veto will for now, prevail. Because allowing all of the latter to dictate enforcement/non-enforcement is the path of least resistance to many college administrators.
I often hear “I consider myself a Free Speech absolutist but...in your case you say there has to be some ‘curbs’ on it. And then, I never see anyone actually try to provide those curbs. Why? They don’t exist. I do agree that things like libel and incitement can have some definitions around them. But I don’t think that’s what you’re referring to. So, how bout it? Willing to give it a try? IMO, hate speech is just the speech one person or group happens not to like. In an advanced democracy we have to be adults and listen to all sorts of stuff - the beautiful and the poison. And what’s the quote, something like ‘let the sunshine of free speech be the disinfectant.’
There should be no hate speech laws, because the 1st amendment requires that the government protect free speech; only the government can violate free speech rights, and this includes things like pressuring social media companies to ban certain viewpoints on their platforms (see the Twitter Files). However, private individuals, including employers, heads of corporations, heads of universities and donors have the right of freedom of association. They can choose to disassociate themselves from those who advocate for morally depraved positions such as mass slaughter, and they are within their rights to terminate employees, expel students or pull their donations if they so choose. Those affected can still go demonstrate on a street corner along with the other depraved protestors.
The right to free speech is a political right, and unless the government is pressuring private companies or universities to sanction individuals for their speech, then no free speech rights are being violated.
I agree. Get rid of the whole idea of hate speech and simply define libel and incitement.
It’s interesting too that, we often assume hate speech will lead to violence, and of course sometimes it does. But we have plenty of violence that happens without hate speech. I don’t think they are connected as we assume they are, at least as an individual level.
In addition, for anyone concerned about “echo chambers” either side of the aisle, then free speech is the antidote— the whole idea of what the authors say about a “right to hear.” A weak argument that can’t persuade someone tends to then rely on force and restriction of dissent to get people to comply. Be wary of anyone who results to force for compliance— means they argument for their position isn’t very strong.
Am I willing to give it a try? MMKay. I agree that hate speech is so subjective that it can't be codified as bad because it changes with every generation. As I think out loud I'm moving in the direction of doxing.
Is it protected speech to dox someone? Technically you can find the information on the internet. Say you're at a protest that is on the verge of getting violent. Is it protected speech to "gently" dox someone?
"You know that Eleanor Rigby? She hates trans women! She sits in the comfort of her home spewing her transphobia. I don't know how the people on Penny Lane put up with her! Her Trump sign, American flag upside down, and of course she has a gas guzzling Ford Explorer. That hate filled bigot spewing her violence without a care in the world."
Cotton, thanks for adding context! This is indeed a tough one but it is likely something along the lines of ‘case by case’ and ‘it depends’. One could argue that depending on the supposed intent of the dox share, one might define it as incitement (e.g. sharing full name, address, description of ‘what this person deserves’ / actual threats etc.). But, in the case of the Harvard students, as far as I know (and no, I did not dig into this) no addresses or threats were issued. These students put their own names on a letter that was made public. That sounds like a bad decision and a consequence. I am not a fan of the idea of digging up ‘publically available info’ (that may take some time & effort to get) if the intent is nefarious. But shame is indeed a way society uses to moderate behavior. For me, I want to know who the Jew Haters are and they should be willing to take responsibility for their positions. All these “free Palestine” protesters covering their faces are cowardly. I’m very pro-Israel but that does not make me anti-Palestinian. But the reverse does not seem to be true. I would like nothing more than a Palestinian movement that is mature and wants to build a civil society, recognize Israel and thus provide opportunities for the talents and wisdom of its people. Israel would be happy to have that kind of partner. If the Palestinians had made peace in ‘48, they’d likely be the most successful, non-oil reliant Arabs in MENA. Sorry to digress. While doxxing is something to contend with, I think it still fits into the overarching free speech framework we have and I understand that there are legislative efforts to define the more nefarious intents.
I have to agree with you regarding owning what you say, especially if it is something incendiary. I too want to know who the anti-Semites are, because if they hate Jewish people, it isn't a jump to conclude they hate other groups unlike themselves.
Doxing is an interesting question. Back in the day, the idea of free speech was a public square in a smaller community where most everyone might know you. I do think the anonymity of the internet hurts free speech— people tend to be more careful with what they say when they have to own it. And I see no reason why we shouldn’t continue the practice of attaching your name and face to any statements you make. Be responsible and be accountable for what you say.
On the other hand, the small community would have already known that Elinor drives a gas-guzzilling car, so there was little need to bring in irrelevant information about the person. Either way, this extra information about a person, whether known or unknown, is not a logical argument to a discussion, it’s simply a character attack. Could certain ad hoc character attacks be consider libel at some point? I’m not sure. But I could understand us limiting doxxing under some sort of libel definition that would avoid putting it into the category of “hate speech.”
We must ensure that if they take that path there are social consequences. We Coventry and shun them as individuals. In this case their ommission is the same as the bigot's commision and they equally deserve our moral opprobrium.
Well said. But also -- Penn has all but fired Professor Amy Wax at the law school because she dared say -- factually -- that blacks did poorly in law school - a fact. There is no free speech in America to say things about blacks that are unfavorable.
>I believe it is possible to craft a sensible definition of hate speech
This is a very slippery slope, as we've learned these past 10-20 years (especially on college campuses). I would rather have absolute free speech on campus (and elsewhere), rather than have some administrator or DEI committee define what constitutes hate speech. I suspect the reason we have seen an increase in so-called hate speech and hate crimes around the world is because we keep defining-down what constitutes hate speech or a hate crime.
I understand where you’re coming from, but those who are saying as business owners and executives that they don’t want these people in their offices do not have to make such a decision trying to regard what the consequence to that hateful student would be. Who cares? Their job is to protect their culture if they choose, and rejecting people who glory in the massacre of others is probably not great for culture. The free speech is great, just so you get to know what kind of people you’re dealing with. Out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks.
That last is striking and poetic. You certainly can't say "Tradutorre: Traditore" of it. I'll have to look into the source, cheers!
I agree: we have to allow these people to condemn themselves out of their own mouths. Then we can bar them from our pubs; refuse to serve them in our shops; bin their job applications; ignore them at work; and cross the road when we see them. Coventry for the lot of 'em.
I can't say I wouldn't thump one if they were in my face, and I wouldn't see anything if they were hauled around the back and given a good kicking though.
BSB, I know. That's why I have to look in to it. Most modern translations are either woefully innaccurate or totally unreadable. I didn't know what the Berean was and always scrolled past it. If it is up to snuff, I'll buy one. Thanks again! Oh, its actually Luke 6:45c where I found it, but I'll not quibble. :-)
In general I agree but.... you fail to address the fact that many of those expressing their "free speech" are also engaged in suppressing free speech by denying pro Israel students or student groups their right to participate in student organizations and are responsible for "bullying" Jewish students. This has been going on for years now. Shouldn't we expect that they not be given a platform and funding by the University? Why have these universities failed to take action against them and instead, under the cover of free speech, allowed them to continue their harmful activities?
Tania Lee wrote an excellent article in the NY Post explaining how university DEI administrators encouraged and promoted anti-Semitic speech and activities. Why would the university administrators that labeled Jews oppressors now protect them?
Well said. When "speech" transforms into intimidation and outright pogroms, it is no longer Constitutionally protected. And that is precisely what many of these pro-barbarism rallies are.
"Pogrom is a Russian word meaning 'to wreak havoc, to demolish violently.' Historically, the term refers to violent attacks by local non-Jewish populations on Jews in the Russian Empire and in other countries. The first such incident to be labeled a pogrom View is believed to be anti-Jewish rioting in Odessa in 1821. As a descriptive term, “pogrom” came into common usage with extensive anti-Jewish riots that swept the southern and western provinces of the Russian Empire in 1881–1884, following the assassination of Tsar Alexander II."
Seems apt to me. Now slither back under that rock.
Make the argument and let it stand. When you end with ‘...you’re dumb’ you just remove yourself from anyone I respect or would give an ear to. Be better. Remove all your name calling and your post has more merit.
The massacres by Hamas were not a pogrom. The definition I gave is the correct one. They are anti-Jewish riots and intimidation. Not necessarily ending in massacres.
Now go slither away.
Intimidation is not exercising free speech. I have no problem with peaceful demonstrations, even if idiotically supporting terror.
Washington University: “There is only one solution and that is the final solution” being chanted by 100’s of marching students. Given the Democrat led insurrection at the Capitol yesterday, his use of porgrom would be appropriate.
Lol. An insurrection is different than a protest. It becomes an insurrection when they disrupt the counting of the electors in an attempt to prevent the peaceful transfer of power.
You are REALLY bad at this.
100s were marching? You got video evidence?
They were chanting, too?!!
So?
Pogrom: "Organized massacre of a particular ethnic group. Mob attack approved/condoned by authorities against the persons and property of a religious, racial or national minority."
Did that happen to any of the Jewish students at Washington University?
I would ask you Yes/No, but you tend to not be honest...or right.
Of course we should deport aliens in our country who support barbarism and genocide. Theodore Roosevelt explained concisely that anyone who comes to America to be an American - adopting the American flag, language, culture and people as his or her own - belongs here. But not the unassimilated and those who hate their fellow Americans. So Senator Cotton is right and Strossen and Paresky are wrong.
Moreover, the article (not a case) cited by Strossen and Paresky ends with this "The Supreme Court has yet to sort out the rights of aliens residing legally or illegally in the United States." So it should be clear that we can deport any fifth columnist not legally in the US. (which includes Ilan Omar, btw). Furthermore, those on student visas are not lawfully residing in our nation - unlike green card holders. They are mere visitors on an extended stay and may be sent packing for supporting enemy causes (which Hamas is, just in case you missed it). So Senator Cotton is on sound Constitutional grounds, as well.
In the final analysis, we must never forget the warning of Justice Jackson in Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949): “There is a danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.” In trying to protect foreign agents fomenting hatred and barbarism in our streets, Strossen and Paresky would do just that
It really didn't take so long for some of the people who wanted to silence others were shocked to discover that they were going to be silenced. I don't know if any of the pro-Hamas protestors supported silencing/punishing people that expressed differing opinions ("I disagree with full term abortions", "Masks don't work", "I voted for Trump", "There is science that disagrees with Fauci"). The problem with censorship is that those that support it only want people they disagree with to be censored. It never works that way. Loss of freedom of speech is loss of freedom.
I am a free speech absolutist. I am also an absolutist when it comes to employers choosing to not bring violence-supporting creatures into their organizations. I am heartened by those in the donor class having some moral backbone. The NYU law student who lost her job offer is not being threatened with violence or not being able to support herself. She is welcome to go get a job with whoever wants someone of her low caliber on payroll.
Agreed. Media platforms are free to say yes to the government in not posting hateful comments, or say no. Kids on campus can scream whatever the hell they want, and pay the consequences when prospective employers exercise their own free speech rights and say no, we do not agree, and we're not hiring. Donors can speak up and deny funding. All is fair in love and in war.
But the 'utility' is a platform owned by a corporation, in which it uses to make money - it has inherit rights to open or deny access. It has the right to edit and to not publish. And its users have the right to seek their free speech access elsewhere, if dissatisfied. The FP here could do also deny us the freedom to write as we wish that we heartily enjoy, that is their right for owning this platform - thankfully it does not. A true public square would be a platform owned by no one.
"A true public square." True as defined by you? I expect legislatures to take action soon. A utility, such as an electric company or phone company, does not have an inherent right to deny access due to personal bias.
Free speech is absolute, at least it is in a liberal, free society. A professor is allowed to say whatever he or she wants. A college is also allowed free speech and is allowed to fire the professor. Let me clarify. One is free to say anything, and society is free to hold people accountable for their speech. As a US citizen I have freedom of speech. My free speech also includes accountability for that free speech. It's like the relationship between rights and responsibilities; one does not exist without the other, except in a sick society.
There is no law, or indeed legal precedent, that says that yelling fire in a crowded theater isn't protected speech. That's a long lasting myth from a case that was overturned 60 years ago (which wasn't about fires or theaters or freedom of speech). Just fyi, anyone can yell that at a theater and not get arrested for it. That doesn't mean there won't be consequences for doing so, of course.
Sorry sport, I don't answer the demands of those with the hanging lightbulb over the interrogation table. Your example shows that both sides used their free speech.
There is a vast gulf between the speech of citizens and the intrigues of enemy agents. Deportation is the appropriate sanction for the latter. Moral sanction, as practiced by Winston & Strawn and Bill Ackman et al, the proper nostrum for the former.
I couldn't agree more. And yet they do employ such people to a greater extent than most people ever knew. I am not surprised though (I'm an academic and Jewish, to be clear).
You’re leaving out the silent majority that is no match for hate speech and will always encourage the ignorant which are so many, to grow and expand hate speech, ending in innocent people losing their lives. That is reality. Have you not seen all the photos and videos of the masses in the streets saluting Hitler? Wake up before it’s too late, but it might already be.
Excellent article. We have to defend free speech. That said, I agree with those who say that companies are under no obligation to hire people who advocate for mass murder of Jews. Employee free speech isn’t really protected if you’re an at-will, non-union employee in most states. If offers would be rescinded if a candidate expressed a wish to kill large groups of people who are say black, no one would think twice about rescinding the offer. I agree we must protect free speech and hold the moral authority on that while the far Left attempts to destroy anyone who says something even slightly off the woke script. The woman whose offer was rescinded was not applying for just any job. Lawyers are joining a profession and can be held to ethical standards of professional conduct, at work and in public. This is not a job that people take just to pay the bills. I work as a freelance writer and live on much less than I could make at a normal job in large part so that I can write freely without fear of reprisals from an employer. On my previous jobs that would not be possible. Taking a job with a law firm means you have to fit in with their culture, which might mean not advocating for the slaughter of people in the office next door. That being said, I defend people’s right to protest, write, speak and sing within the First Amendment limits and protections. The Left certainly doesn’t defend those rights until it comes to protecting antisemitic speech. It’s also scary to see campuses paying no attention to the safety and mental health of their Jewish students. Supporting all students at a time like this should be the priority. Too many students at Ivy League schools (of which I’m an alum) are dying by suicide as it is. An atmosphere where Jewish students see other minorities protected from micro aggressions while they are subject to calls for violence against Jews outside their dorm rooms is certainly going to make them feel unsafe. I’ve read statements of small less prestigious schools offering support to all students at this time. Jewish, Muslim or otherwise, many have family and friends in the affected area and we are all very afraid as a global conflict erupts. Young people need support and guidance from rational adults. I hope a few get that somewhere.
Well said. I would also add that for law firms it's not just a question of culture - it's a question of clients. A law firm is certainly justified in reconsidering the employment of a new associate who very publicly takes a position that is likely to offend clients and lead to a loss of business.
A law firm only exists because it has clients who willing pay them a shot ton of money. Those clients have options. Perhaps the corporate general counsel frowns on paying a law firm with outspoken Jew haters on their staff $20M a year.
I have to wonder if these free speech advocates—with whom I largely agree-- wrote prominently, if at all, during the last 20+ years, while academia, most of the “legacy” media, and our other corrupt institutions and “elite” centers of influence, waged war on pro-Israel advocates, conservatives, and anyone else who didn’t toe the “Progressive’” line. Many innocent careers and lives were, and continue to be, ruined by this McCarthyesque reign of terror.
This also was my initial thought. Would love to research the author’s prior articles to see if they were so “forgiving” when conservatives were attacked/fired/shamed/de-platformed. I’m a big fan of seeing reprehensible views out in the open, so we can know what/who we’re dealing with. Does one think France is going to solve its problem with radical Islam by “outlawing” pro-Hamas demonstrations? Or will that only conceal the problem while it continues to fester, like an undiagnosed tumor? And who wants the government deciding what speech to prohibit? Our leader can’t even talk in complete sentences.
While he may have indeed been right, his methods were wrong and swept up people that weren't communists. How many of them were actively aiding communist regimes? I'm sure some were, but it wasn't illegal to be a communist in the USA then, and it still isn't now.
So the author didn’t address the government cracking down on white supremacy groups. Not that I would ever support or condone white supremacy in any way. I think it’s very clear that the government has aggressively applied hate laws to these groups. Why does this not apply to students advocating for the death of all Jews? Either we apply hate laws consistently or get rid of them entirely. I don’t like hate laws for this reason. They are not applied consistently for political reasons.
I think free speech is absolute. I think the consequences are too. If you are someone who advocates for genocide I think you should be shunned. There should be redemption, but it should be a long hard road to convince civilized people you belong in polite society ever again. If someone loses their job due to advocating genocide that seems like a reasonable punishment. Free speech is an awesome responsibility that we shouldn’t take lightly.
I think this article is well written, and a fine explanation of how and why we need First Amendment protections. However...
Regarding employers are not hiring, or rescinding offers to some of the student anti-semites is interesting. Progressive mobs via X/Twitter thought nothing of either driving a business to fire someone, or social media platforms to censor, shadow-ban, or outright deplatform someone for speech thought to be, "hateful," or "problematic."
Now that it's happening to those on the left, now we should be concerned with employers deciding who they hire simply because of a "different" opinion? I guess the idea of a diverse, inclusive, and safe work environment doesn't include gross anti-semitism, and a call for the outright extermination of a people based on their religion.
Employers should be able to ignore an applicant, or rescind an offer of employment if said applicant has shown they are a bigoted and hate filled person. And as far and I'm concerned, anti-semitism is just another form of bigotry and prejudice.
I think these protests are dangerous for the Jewish people. I see the speeches as fomenting hate; hate that apparently already exists. In this case it is dangerous for all of us.
All over the world people fear of a world war.
The thirty odd student groups that stated their beliefs that Israel was to blame for atrocities all had Islamist associations.
The ideology that the world can be divided into oppressed and oppressors has been promoted in education across all western societies. Even if the oppression happened fifty or two hundred years ago.
The other current chaos is the no borders ideology that has also been promoted. The mixing of large swaths of peoples from different cultures has created conflicts.
In this case it may be true that it is also one sided.
Universities have coddled their students for too long. The hypocrisy is blinding in this moment. They have spoken out freely against fairly normal conservative American views allowing their students to protest against them, allowing free speech to be denied on campuses because their feelings are hurt, or their students are allowed certain views to be hate speech using the argument their feelings are hurt.
Now, the current antisemitism, which is in fact hate speech, which just might lead to a clash of armies, they suddenly are for absolute free speech. Can only speak in ambiguous terms.
The hypocrisy is in full view. It is time for a reckoning of what it is that we as Americans want. We were founded on ideals, ideas not on what color our skin is, or what country we came from. Immigrants came here because they wanted free speech, opportunities, freedom from religious persecution.
Something has changed and it seems some want to change America into something else.
The great reset, replacement of people’s and culture. Have we decided as a people this what we want?
I am all for free speech. We should listen carefully to what all these protesters say.
Personally I am exhausted from years of screaming activists demanding something from the rest of us.
Darwinism can and should apply here. The students that go too far with this are mentally deficient. If I were CEO of a corporation I’d be using this as an important screening tool.
These are not good ideas being espoused. Let’s not confuse this with controversial free speech that is well reasoned.
I would broads cast every word in the raw and let people judge. Far more pernicious are media outlets who sanitize hate and brutality with code words and euphemisms.
I say this somewhat ironically, but turn about is fair play. I refuse to feel sympathy for these people considering the fact they don’t care about free speech, just their speech, and they are more than happy to silence dissenting views.
And where I disagree with this analysis is that the desire to not associate with or not employ pro-Hamas supporters or antisemites does not look to be driven by retaliation or rage, but by horror and disgust. And that’s a good thing. People and businesses freely choosing to dissociate from people, universities and organizations that express noxious views is a good thing. It means the average American is still decent. It means our nation still has an immune system that can fight these bad ideas with better, truer ideas. It means we can win.
It's nice that the writers recognize the First Amendment rights of those associated with the Left, as virtually all of the pro-Hamas activists are. I happen to agree. But where were the writers' columns regarding the inviolability of the First Amendment when, for years, those on the right were being cancelled wholesale by those same activists? After all, cancel culture was invented by the Left.
Free speech is important, if only to allow people to show their true colors. And to take the pressure out of the kettle. The last week has shown clearly a lot of the issues in our university system, and how broken it is.
That said, speech also has consequences. You want to be hateful that is fine - just don’t expect that to increase your employment choices or friendship groups.
A few comments on your thoughtful article. First, as you know, the First Amendment does not apply to private universities or companies. So we are free to debate its applicability to these institutions. Second, while one can take a position that a college should allow unrestricted free speech however offensive it may be, the reason Penn and other colleges are being subjected to such criticism is that they have not applied this policy on a consistent basis. As just one example, it was reported the female swimmers at Penn who objected to a female identifying biological male competing with them and showering in the women’s locker room displaying full male genitalia were ordered by the school to cease their complaints. The reality is that colleges and universities across the country have systematically restricted free speech on campuses with respect to positions taken that do not correspond to their prevailing ideology. An absolutist free speech position like the one you are taking must be consistently applied. Third, as a former Trustee of two colleges, I think your position will not be acceptable to college communities. Appropriately, they argue for distinguishing between “free speech” and “hate speech”. There have been numerous abuses of this position (“cancel culture”) but I believe it is possible to craft a sensible definition of hate speech. Advocacy of terrorism, antisemitism or racism could be prohibited under clear and consistently applied standards. Finally, I support private entities’ right to choose not to employ persons whose expressed views are abhorrent. There is no legal (or practical) basis for restricting their right to set standards of acceptable discourse in their institutions so long as these policies do not violate civil rights laws.
Wow, tolerating offensive or unpopular speech is OK now? Just want to know if it is OK now to say that George Floyd was a drug addled repeat offender violently resisting arrest and his death is mostly his own fault?
Excellent point. Or, would it be okay if the American Nazis started marching at these rallies, swastikas proudly flying?
Yes, it would be OK as long as they follow the same safety etc regulations that all others do. AND it gives decent people a chance to laugh at them and hoot and hollar at them for the fools they are.
It is better to have those people saying their thoughts so we know who the racists/terrorists etc are, rather than having them slinking around like KKKers behind their sheets.
Yep, much better to know who they are.
Isn't it amazing how many of these "brave warriors for social justice" are hiding behind face masks or have a keffiyeh (aka "hipster swastika") carefully wrapped around their faces? It says a lot about the supposed courage of their convictions that they're hiding their identity from their parents, employers/future employers, and the public.
The authors are simply suicidal Jews. The reality on college campuses, and now within all US institutions, is that there is NO free speech. Speech that doesn't fit the woke left orthodoxy is deemed "hate speech" and those who speak it risk cancellation: loss of job, career, status and possibly physical harm. Those running these schools and institutions do NOT protect such speech.
Where were the authors when this reality took hold over the last 25 years?
The authors site the standard: "....There must be reasonable ground to believe that the danger apprehended is imminent. . . . Only an emergency can justify repression.” For many years now there have been many cases of anti-Semitic and woke left speech that result in violence on campuses. Not only do the violent perpetrators go free, but of course the speakers are never punished.
The authors live in some utopian dreamland, sticking to there noble ideals while we are awash in the violence from the woke left and their anti-Semitic brethren who love Hamas.
My experience watching the anti-Israel protests at the University of Illinois at a graduate school was that:
(i) they were not following safety regulations - they did not have permits and they were often violent, attacking otherwise peaceful pro-Israel students and their property,
(ii) the police watching the spectacle couldn't care less and only got involved if they thought someone was going to get seriously hurt.
So, yes. Free speech only works when it is uniformly and consistently applied.
I can’t remember the details, but I had heard of a small town in the South that several years (or maybe even a decade ago?) that had the dilemma of a Neo-Nazi group that wanted to hold a march through downtown. The town said, yes you have the right to do that. But they placed barriers around the march path such that anyone not involved in the march couldn’t easily see it. I thought that was a brilliant way to handle it.
The point is, these groups WANT to cause a ruckus. They want to cause a scene— they want to provoke you to cancel them, ban them, or otherwise shut them down so that they can turn around and cry “foul” against free speech rights. And of course it isn’t fair, these people don’t play fair. But we can’t lower to their playing field. Rather than give them the attention that they desire, let them have their free speech and IGNORE it. Let them hang themselves by their own words and actions, and don’t draw more attention to them than necessary.
It's been done before.
Sure it is. It's been said here on this comment board many times before.
Nah. Not ok. HR will contact you in the morning.
You just did. Plenty of people were saying just that in plenty of on line venues, as well as physical ones as well. They had every right to do so and clearly did.
this isn't a college campus.
Hate speech, specifically racist speech, has been redefined to include libertarian positions or conservative positions that had been considered reasonable not long ago. I do not share your enthusiasm that standards on defining "hate speech" would be clear and consistent.
No long ago, "only males haves penises" was simply a statement of fact. Now it is Hate Speech!
Is it hate speech to claim that “whiteness” is the root of all problems? This is routinely stated on the left. To argue against is to get cancelled.
Great clarification - I think the double standard that universities apply is a huge sticking point. And I believe donors withdrawing monetary support is an effective and fair way to put universities on notice.
Exactly!
Well said. While I like to think that I'm a free speech absolutist, even I realize that there has to be some curbs on it. So I agree that in theory there can be carefully crafted speech restrictions.
However, I believe that this will remain just a theory because in my opinion, there is no way that these "restrictions" can ever be enforced in a fair and equitable manner on college campuses. Ideology, feelings, and the heckler's veto will for now, prevail. Because allowing all of the latter to dictate enforcement/non-enforcement is the path of least resistance to many college administrators.
I often hear “I consider myself a Free Speech absolutist but...in your case you say there has to be some ‘curbs’ on it. And then, I never see anyone actually try to provide those curbs. Why? They don’t exist. I do agree that things like libel and incitement can have some definitions around them. But I don’t think that’s what you’re referring to. So, how bout it? Willing to give it a try? IMO, hate speech is just the speech one person or group happens not to like. In an advanced democracy we have to be adults and listen to all sorts of stuff - the beautiful and the poison. And what’s the quote, something like ‘let the sunshine of free speech be the disinfectant.’
There should be no hate speech laws, because the 1st amendment requires that the government protect free speech; only the government can violate free speech rights, and this includes things like pressuring social media companies to ban certain viewpoints on their platforms (see the Twitter Files). However, private individuals, including employers, heads of corporations, heads of universities and donors have the right of freedom of association. They can choose to disassociate themselves from those who advocate for morally depraved positions such as mass slaughter, and they are within their rights to terminate employees, expel students or pull their donations if they so choose. Those affected can still go demonstrate on a street corner along with the other depraved protestors.
The right to free speech is a political right, and unless the government is pressuring private companies or universities to sanction individuals for their speech, then no free speech rights are being violated.
I agree. Get rid of the whole idea of hate speech and simply define libel and incitement.
It’s interesting too that, we often assume hate speech will lead to violence, and of course sometimes it does. But we have plenty of violence that happens without hate speech. I don’t think they are connected as we assume they are, at least as an individual level.
In addition, for anyone concerned about “echo chambers” either side of the aisle, then free speech is the antidote— the whole idea of what the authors say about a “right to hear.” A weak argument that can’t persuade someone tends to then rely on force and restriction of dissent to get people to comply. Be wary of anyone who results to force for compliance— means they argument for their position isn’t very strong.
Absolutely agree with this.
I agree 100%.
Am I willing to give it a try? MMKay. I agree that hate speech is so subjective that it can't be codified as bad because it changes with every generation. As I think out loud I'm moving in the direction of doxing.
Is it protected speech to dox someone? Technically you can find the information on the internet. Say you're at a protest that is on the verge of getting violent. Is it protected speech to "gently" dox someone?
"You know that Eleanor Rigby? She hates trans women! She sits in the comfort of her home spewing her transphobia. I don't know how the people on Penny Lane put up with her! Her Trump sign, American flag upside down, and of course she has a gas guzzling Ford Explorer. That hate filled bigot spewing her violence without a care in the world."
Cotton, thanks for adding context! This is indeed a tough one but it is likely something along the lines of ‘case by case’ and ‘it depends’. One could argue that depending on the supposed intent of the dox share, one might define it as incitement (e.g. sharing full name, address, description of ‘what this person deserves’ / actual threats etc.). But, in the case of the Harvard students, as far as I know (and no, I did not dig into this) no addresses or threats were issued. These students put their own names on a letter that was made public. That sounds like a bad decision and a consequence. I am not a fan of the idea of digging up ‘publically available info’ (that may take some time & effort to get) if the intent is nefarious. But shame is indeed a way society uses to moderate behavior. For me, I want to know who the Jew Haters are and they should be willing to take responsibility for their positions. All these “free Palestine” protesters covering their faces are cowardly. I’m very pro-Israel but that does not make me anti-Palestinian. But the reverse does not seem to be true. I would like nothing more than a Palestinian movement that is mature and wants to build a civil society, recognize Israel and thus provide opportunities for the talents and wisdom of its people. Israel would be happy to have that kind of partner. If the Palestinians had made peace in ‘48, they’d likely be the most successful, non-oil reliant Arabs in MENA. Sorry to digress. While doxxing is something to contend with, I think it still fits into the overarching free speech framework we have and I understand that there are legislative efforts to define the more nefarious intents.
I have to agree with you regarding owning what you say, especially if it is something incendiary. I too want to know who the anti-Semites are, because if they hate Jewish people, it isn't a jump to conclude they hate other groups unlike themselves.
Doxing is an interesting question. Back in the day, the idea of free speech was a public square in a smaller community where most everyone might know you. I do think the anonymity of the internet hurts free speech— people tend to be more careful with what they say when they have to own it. And I see no reason why we shouldn’t continue the practice of attaching your name and face to any statements you make. Be responsible and be accountable for what you say.
On the other hand, the small community would have already known that Elinor drives a gas-guzzilling car, so there was little need to bring in irrelevant information about the person. Either way, this extra information about a person, whether known or unknown, is not a logical argument to a discussion, it’s simply a character attack. Could certain ad hoc character attacks be consider libel at some point? I’m not sure. But I could understand us limiting doxxing under some sort of libel definition that would avoid putting it into the category of “hate speech.”
We must ensure that if they take that path there are social consequences. We Coventry and shun them as individuals. In this case their ommission is the same as the bigot's commision and they equally deserve our moral opprobrium.
Wow....you're no longer a free speech absolutist....what changed?
Well said. But also -- Penn has all but fired Professor Amy Wax at the law school because she dared say -- factually -- that blacks did poorly in law school - a fact. There is no free speech in America to say things about blacks that are unfavorable.
>I believe it is possible to craft a sensible definition of hate speech
This is a very slippery slope, as we've learned these past 10-20 years (especially on college campuses). I would rather have absolute free speech on campus (and elsewhere), rather than have some administrator or DEI committee define what constitutes hate speech. I suspect the reason we have seen an increase in so-called hate speech and hate crimes around the world is because we keep defining-down what constitutes hate speech or a hate crime.
This!!
Beautifully said
I understand where you’re coming from, but those who are saying as business owners and executives that they don’t want these people in their offices do not have to make such a decision trying to regard what the consequence to that hateful student would be. Who cares? Their job is to protect their culture if they choose, and rejecting people who glory in the massacre of others is probably not great for culture. The free speech is great, just so you get to know what kind of people you’re dealing with. Out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks.
I agree completely.
Why on earth would you hire someone who voices odious ideas?
But the government--or tech or universities--should never decide what gets spoken (except for the usual constitutional exceptions re incitement etc).
That last is striking and poetic. You certainly can't say "Tradutorre: Traditore" of it. I'll have to look into the source, cheers!
I agree: we have to allow these people to condemn themselves out of their own mouths. Then we can bar them from our pubs; refuse to serve them in our shops; bin their job applications; ignore them at work; and cross the road when we see them. Coventry for the lot of 'em.
I can't say I wouldn't thump one if they were in my face, and I wouldn't see anything if they were hauled around the back and given a good kicking though.
For the last quote: Matthew 12:34 - The Bible 😉
BSB, I know. That's why I have to look in to it. Most modern translations are either woefully innaccurate or totally unreadable. I didn't know what the Berean was and always scrolled past it. If it is up to snuff, I'll buy one. Thanks again! Oh, its actually Luke 6:45c where I found it, but I'll not quibble. :-)
Well said!
In general I agree but.... you fail to address the fact that many of those expressing their "free speech" are also engaged in suppressing free speech by denying pro Israel students or student groups their right to participate in student organizations and are responsible for "bullying" Jewish students. This has been going on for years now. Shouldn't we expect that they not be given a platform and funding by the University? Why have these universities failed to take action against them and instead, under the cover of free speech, allowed them to continue their harmful activities?
Tania Lee wrote an excellent article in the NY Post explaining how university DEI administrators encouraged and promoted anti-Semitic speech and activities. Why would the university administrators that labeled Jews oppressors now protect them?
Well said. When "speech" transforms into intimidation and outright pogroms, it is no longer Constitutionally protected. And that is precisely what many of these pro-barbarism rallies are.
You might want to look up the definition of "Pogrom."
"Pogrom is a Russian word meaning 'to wreak havoc, to demolish violently.' Historically, the term refers to violent attacks by local non-Jewish populations on Jews in the Russian Empire and in other countries. The first such incident to be labeled a pogrom View is believed to be anti-Jewish rioting in Odessa in 1821. As a descriptive term, “pogrom” came into common usage with extensive anti-Jewish riots that swept the southern and western provinces of the Russian Empire in 1881–1884, following the assassination of Tsar Alexander II."
Seems apt to me. Now slither back under that rock.
Lol. Wrong.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pogrom
There are no pogroms (even by your wrong definition) happening on college campuses.
So, of course it seems "apt" to you, because you're dumb.
You're just mad people are excercising their Free Speech rights. Hypocrite.
Make the argument and let it stand. When you end with ‘...you’re dumb’ you just remove yourself from anyone I respect or would give an ear to. Be better. Remove all your name calling and your post has more merit.
Wow....I'm so concerned about your respect level and what you consider has merit, Jeff.
That's so important to me.
I have a history with Bruce. So, I will return fire. You should probably just STFU and mind your business.
The massacres by Hamas were not a pogrom. The definition I gave is the correct one. They are anti-Jewish riots and intimidation. Not necessarily ending in massacres.
Now go slither away.
Intimidation is not exercising free speech. I have no problem with peaceful demonstrations, even if idiotically supporting terror.
Nah. Not gonna be slithering anywhere. Gonna stand right here and keep owning you.
There are no anti-Jewish riots and/or attacks happening on college campuses.
Oh, so a "pogrom" is also when you try to intimidate people? Well, guess Charlottesville was a "pogrom," too. Thanks for clearing that up.
Your definition is wrong.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/pogrom
Washington University: “There is only one solution and that is the final solution” being chanted by 100’s of marching students. Given the Democrat led insurrection at the Capitol yesterday, his use of porgrom would be appropriate.
But you tend to not be honest.
Saw the video re: Washington University. That's a "Pogrom" to you?
Are you just a liar or stupid?
Do you mean this situation?
https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1712576174944063577?
Lol. An insurrection is different than a protest. It becomes an insurrection when they disrupt the counting of the electors in an attempt to prevent the peaceful transfer of power.
You are REALLY bad at this.
100s were marching? You got video evidence?
They were chanting, too?!!
So?
Pogrom: "Organized massacre of a particular ethnic group. Mob attack approved/condoned by authorities against the persons and property of a religious, racial or national minority."
Did that happen to any of the Jewish students at Washington University?
I would ask you Yes/No, but you tend to not be honest...or right.
Of course we should deport aliens in our country who support barbarism and genocide. Theodore Roosevelt explained concisely that anyone who comes to America to be an American - adopting the American flag, language, culture and people as his or her own - belongs here. But not the unassimilated and those who hate their fellow Americans. So Senator Cotton is right and Strossen and Paresky are wrong.
Moreover, the article (not a case) cited by Strossen and Paresky ends with this "The Supreme Court has yet to sort out the rights of aliens residing legally or illegally in the United States." So it should be clear that we can deport any fifth columnist not legally in the US. (which includes Ilan Omar, btw). Furthermore, those on student visas are not lawfully residing in our nation - unlike green card holders. They are mere visitors on an extended stay and may be sent packing for supporting enemy causes (which Hamas is, just in case you missed it). So Senator Cotton is on sound Constitutional grounds, as well.
In the final analysis, we must never forget the warning of Justice Jackson in Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949): “There is a danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.” In trying to protect foreign agents fomenting hatred and barbarism in our streets, Strossen and Paresky would do just that
I bet you were a pretty darn good lawyer
Thanks but I'm still dabbling despite my advanced years.
Lol.
Very well said
It really didn't take so long for some of the people who wanted to silence others were shocked to discover that they were going to be silenced. I don't know if any of the pro-Hamas protestors supported silencing/punishing people that expressed differing opinions ("I disagree with full term abortions", "Masks don't work", "I voted for Trump", "There is science that disagrees with Fauci"). The problem with censorship is that those that support it only want people they disagree with to be censored. It never works that way. Loss of freedom of speech is loss of freedom.
I am a free speech absolutist. I am also an absolutist when it comes to employers choosing to not bring violence-supporting creatures into their organizations. I am heartened by those in the donor class having some moral backbone. The NYU law student who lost her job offer is not being threatened with violence or not being able to support herself. She is welcome to go get a job with whoever wants someone of her low caliber on payroll.
Agreed. Media platforms are free to say yes to the government in not posting hateful comments, or say no. Kids on campus can scream whatever the hell they want, and pay the consequences when prospective employers exercise their own free speech rights and say no, we do not agree, and we're not hiring. Donors can speak up and deny funding. All is fair in love and in war.
I expect media platforms will eventually be classified as utilities for the public square. This will change the equation.
But the 'utility' is a platform owned by a corporation, in which it uses to make money - it has inherit rights to open or deny access. It has the right to edit and to not publish. And its users have the right to seek their free speech access elsewhere, if dissatisfied. The FP here could do also deny us the freedom to write as we wish that we heartily enjoy, that is their right for owning this platform - thankfully it does not. A true public square would be a platform owned by no one.
"A true public square." True as defined by you? I expect legislatures to take action soon. A utility, such as an electric company or phone company, does not have an inherent right to deny access due to personal bias.
Free speech is not absolute.
If I were a college professor, can I tell students it's ok to experiment having sex with a child?
Google Ward Churchill, or yelling fire in a crowded theatre.
Free speech is absolute, at least it is in a liberal, free society. A professor is allowed to say whatever he or she wants. A college is also allowed free speech and is allowed to fire the professor. Let me clarify. One is free to say anything, and society is free to hold people accountable for their speech. As a US citizen I have freedom of speech. My free speech also includes accountability for that free speech. It's like the relationship between rights and responsibilities; one does not exist without the other, except in a sick society.
There is no law, or indeed legal precedent, that says that yelling fire in a crowded theater isn't protected speech. That's a long lasting myth from a case that was overturned 60 years ago (which wasn't about fires or theaters or freedom of speech). Just fyi, anyone can yell that at a theater and not get arrested for it. That doesn't mean there won't be consequences for doing so, of course.
Sorry sport, but you're wrong. That's why you won't answer my questions.
Ward Churchill was fired from U. of Colorado. Co. courts upheld the decision.
Sorry sport, I don't answer the demands of those with the hanging lightbulb over the interrogation table. Your example shows that both sides used their free speech.
Thank you. The remedy for hate speech always and ever has been more speech. It astonishes me how few people now understand this.
There is a vast gulf between the speech of citizens and the intrigues of enemy agents. Deportation is the appropriate sanction for the latter. Moral sanction, as practiced by Winston & Strawn and Bill Ackman et al, the proper nostrum for the former.
Here, here!
That doesn't mean we need to employ those people in public universities though.
They would never allow a white supremist to be a professor. Neither should they allow an anti-Semite to be a professor.
I couldn't agree more. And yet they do employ such people to a greater extent than most people ever knew. I am not surprised though (I'm an academic and Jewish, to be clear).
You’re leaving out the silent majority that is no match for hate speech and will always encourage the ignorant which are so many, to grow and expand hate speech, ending in innocent people losing their lives. That is reality. Have you not seen all the photos and videos of the masses in the streets saluting Hitler? Wake up before it’s too late, but it might already be.
Excellent article. We have to defend free speech. That said, I agree with those who say that companies are under no obligation to hire people who advocate for mass murder of Jews. Employee free speech isn’t really protected if you’re an at-will, non-union employee in most states. If offers would be rescinded if a candidate expressed a wish to kill large groups of people who are say black, no one would think twice about rescinding the offer. I agree we must protect free speech and hold the moral authority on that while the far Left attempts to destroy anyone who says something even slightly off the woke script. The woman whose offer was rescinded was not applying for just any job. Lawyers are joining a profession and can be held to ethical standards of professional conduct, at work and in public. This is not a job that people take just to pay the bills. I work as a freelance writer and live on much less than I could make at a normal job in large part so that I can write freely without fear of reprisals from an employer. On my previous jobs that would not be possible. Taking a job with a law firm means you have to fit in with their culture, which might mean not advocating for the slaughter of people in the office next door. That being said, I defend people’s right to protest, write, speak and sing within the First Amendment limits and protections. The Left certainly doesn’t defend those rights until it comes to protecting antisemitic speech. It’s also scary to see campuses paying no attention to the safety and mental health of their Jewish students. Supporting all students at a time like this should be the priority. Too many students at Ivy League schools (of which I’m an alum) are dying by suicide as it is. An atmosphere where Jewish students see other minorities protected from micro aggressions while they are subject to calls for violence against Jews outside their dorm rooms is certainly going to make them feel unsafe. I’ve read statements of small less prestigious schools offering support to all students at this time. Jewish, Muslim or otherwise, many have family and friends in the affected area and we are all very afraid as a global conflict erupts. Young people need support and guidance from rational adults. I hope a few get that somewhere.
Well said. I would also add that for law firms it's not just a question of culture - it's a question of clients. A law firm is certainly justified in reconsidering the employment of a new associate who very publicly takes a position that is likely to offend clients and lead to a loss of business.
A law firm only exists because it has clients who willing pay them a shot ton of money. Those clients have options. Perhaps the corporate general counsel frowns on paying a law firm with outspoken Jew haters on their staff $20M a year.
I have to wonder if these free speech advocates—with whom I largely agree-- wrote prominently, if at all, during the last 20+ years, while academia, most of the “legacy” media, and our other corrupt institutions and “elite” centers of influence, waged war on pro-Israel advocates, conservatives, and anyone else who didn’t toe the “Progressive’” line. Many innocent careers and lives were, and continue to be, ruined by this McCarthyesque reign of terror.
This also was my initial thought. Would love to research the author’s prior articles to see if they were so “forgiving” when conservatives were attacked/fired/shamed/de-platformed. I’m a big fan of seeing reprehensible views out in the open, so we can know what/who we’re dealing with. Does one think France is going to solve its problem with radical Islam by “outlawing” pro-Hamas demonstrations? Or will that only conceal the problem while it continues to fester, like an undiagnosed tumor? And who wants the government deciding what speech to prohibit? Our leader can’t even talk in complete sentences.
Nadine is a former head of the ACLU. Do the math.
The FIRE organization is well known for protecting all speech including conservative speech.
Except McCarthy was right, and didn't know the half of it.
While he may have indeed been right, his methods were wrong and swept up people that weren't communists. How many of them were actively aiding communist regimes? I'm sure some were, but it wasn't illegal to be a communist in the USA then, and it still isn't now.
So the author didn’t address the government cracking down on white supremacy groups. Not that I would ever support or condone white supremacy in any way. I think it’s very clear that the government has aggressively applied hate laws to these groups. Why does this not apply to students advocating for the death of all Jews? Either we apply hate laws consistently or get rid of them entirely. I don’t like hate laws for this reason. They are not applied consistently for political reasons.
I think free speech is absolute. I think the consequences are too. If you are someone who advocates for genocide I think you should be shunned. There should be redemption, but it should be a long hard road to convince civilized people you belong in polite society ever again. If someone loses their job due to advocating genocide that seems like a reasonable punishment. Free speech is an awesome responsibility that we shouldn’t take lightly.
I think this article is well written, and a fine explanation of how and why we need First Amendment protections. However...
Regarding employers are not hiring, or rescinding offers to some of the student anti-semites is interesting. Progressive mobs via X/Twitter thought nothing of either driving a business to fire someone, or social media platforms to censor, shadow-ban, or outright deplatform someone for speech thought to be, "hateful," or "problematic."
Now that it's happening to those on the left, now we should be concerned with employers deciding who they hire simply because of a "different" opinion? I guess the idea of a diverse, inclusive, and safe work environment doesn't include gross anti-semitism, and a call for the outright extermination of a people based on their religion.
Employers should be able to ignore an applicant, or rescind an offer of employment if said applicant has shown they are a bigoted and hate filled person. And as far and I'm concerned, anti-semitism is just another form of bigotry and prejudice.
I think these protests are dangerous for the Jewish people. I see the speeches as fomenting hate; hate that apparently already exists. In this case it is dangerous for all of us.
All over the world people fear of a world war.
The thirty odd student groups that stated their beliefs that Israel was to blame for atrocities all had Islamist associations.
The ideology that the world can be divided into oppressed and oppressors has been promoted in education across all western societies. Even if the oppression happened fifty or two hundred years ago.
The other current chaos is the no borders ideology that has also been promoted. The mixing of large swaths of peoples from different cultures has created conflicts.
In this case it may be true that it is also one sided.
Universities have coddled their students for too long. The hypocrisy is blinding in this moment. They have spoken out freely against fairly normal conservative American views allowing their students to protest against them, allowing free speech to be denied on campuses because their feelings are hurt, or their students are allowed certain views to be hate speech using the argument their feelings are hurt.
Now, the current antisemitism, which is in fact hate speech, which just might lead to a clash of armies, they suddenly are for absolute free speech. Can only speak in ambiguous terms.
The hypocrisy is in full view. It is time for a reckoning of what it is that we as Americans want. We were founded on ideals, ideas not on what color our skin is, or what country we came from. Immigrants came here because they wanted free speech, opportunities, freedom from religious persecution.
Something has changed and it seems some want to change America into something else.
The great reset, replacement of people’s and culture. Have we decided as a people this what we want?
I am all for free speech. We should listen carefully to what all these protesters say.
Personally I am exhausted from years of screaming activists demanding something from the rest of us.
Darwinism can and should apply here. The students that go too far with this are mentally deficient. If I were CEO of a corporation I’d be using this as an important screening tool.
These are not good ideas being espoused. Let’s not confuse this with controversial free speech that is well reasoned.
I would broads cast every word in the raw and let people judge. Far more pernicious are media outlets who sanitize hate and brutality with code words and euphemisms.
I say this somewhat ironically, but turn about is fair play. I refuse to feel sympathy for these people considering the fact they don’t care about free speech, just their speech, and they are more than happy to silence dissenting views.
And where I disagree with this analysis is that the desire to not associate with or not employ pro-Hamas supporters or antisemites does not look to be driven by retaliation or rage, but by horror and disgust. And that’s a good thing. People and businesses freely choosing to dissociate from people, universities and organizations that express noxious views is a good thing. It means the average American is still decent. It means our nation still has an immune system that can fight these bad ideas with better, truer ideas. It means we can win.
It's nice that the writers recognize the First Amendment rights of those associated with the Left, as virtually all of the pro-Hamas activists are. I happen to agree. But where were the writers' columns regarding the inviolability of the First Amendment when, for years, those on the right were being cancelled wholesale by those same activists? After all, cancel culture was invented by the Left.
Free speech is important, if only to allow people to show their true colors. And to take the pressure out of the kettle. The last week has shown clearly a lot of the issues in our university system, and how broken it is.
That said, speech also has consequences. You want to be hateful that is fine - just don’t expect that to increase your employment choices or friendship groups.