Pro-Palestinian Speech Is Still Free Speech
Republicans should remember that they have spent years railing against censorship on college campuses.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is unfolding half a world away, yet virtually no other political issue inspires as much acrimony among U.S. college students. After the terrorist group Hamas killed approximately 1,200 people in Israel on October 7, Israeli forces responded by bombing the Gaza Strip, killing thousands of Palestinians.* In response, American college campuses witnessed a surge of pro-Palestinian activism—as well as repeated efforts to silence the activists.
One need not agree with those students' slogans, their tactics, or their goals to recognize that provocative political speech is protected by the First Amendment. Republican political figures who have spent years railing against censorship and cancel culture would do well to remember that.
Take Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a candidate for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination. On October 24, State University System of Florida Chancellor Ray Rodrigues ordered two chapters of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) to disband, citing the governor's authority to prohibit any group that knowingly provides "material support" to a terrorist group.
SJP's speech deserves criticism; a toolkit circulated by the group does in fact celebrate the slaughter of Israeli citizens on October 7 as "a historic win for the Palestinian resistance." It's foolish to see the indiscriminate killing of civilians as anything other than terrorism, but pro-Palestinian students have an ironclad First Amendment right to express that heinous view—something Rodrigues belatedly realized after soliciting legal advice. "We have reviewed those opinions, and in short, they raise concerns about potential personal liability for university actors who deactivate the student-registered organization," he explained in a statement. In other words, Florida administrators decided it wasn't worth the headache.
Other campuses have taken dubious actions without any nudging from politicians. Columbia University suspended two pro-Palestinian student groups, SJP and Jewish Voice for Peace, ostensibly for holding an unauthorized event. Rockland Community College in New York suspended a student after she shouted "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" and "Jews for Palestine" at a pro-Israel event.
Commentators calling for the suppression of pro-Palestinian activism have frequently cited the fact that some Jewish students have felt unsafe on campuses. Certainly, college administrators should investigate and try to prevent actual threats of violence against all students. But free speech principles do not take a vacation merely because the speech in question is hurtful; there is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment. Republicans appeared to understand this reality when administrators censored conservative speech, yet now they are pining for safe spaces.
Indeed, the November 8 Republican presidential debate was a veritable celebration of censorship, with Nikki Haley, Chris Christie, and DeSantis all promising to punish pro-Palestinian speech. A notable exception was Vivek Ramaswamy, who called out his opponents for their hypocrisy on anti-Israel advocacy. "We don't quash this with censorship, because that creates a worse underbelly," he said. "We quell it through leadership by calling it out."
CORRECTION: This article initially misstated the number of civilians killed by Hamas. Approximately 800 civilians and 400 members of Israeli security forces died on October 7.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The reporting here is terrible. We should murder everyone here except Wolfe, Stossel, and Rommelman.
Hey, free speech!
Fruit Sushi definitely gets it in the neck.
We’re being coerced to conflate moral with immoral behaviour.
Why is woke, cancelling, censorship and groupthink a thing?
What’s the point, some twisted misconception of altruism?
No, there’s nothing altruistic about their selfish motives. Once it is “normalized” to coerce people by destroying and threatening them for their opinions and ideas, doing so can be easily controlled with money giving more power and control over everyone to the wealthy.
Like all the wealthy Jewish Harvard donors who cancelled the president for not supporting Israel enough.
What position of power couldn’t a Jew hold and be untouchable by threatening anyone for being an antisemite. It’s about power and money.
Jews in Israel are boldly committing genocide and crimes against humanity in Gaza with the unconditional support and funding from the US while hiding behind insincere claims of antisemitism.
The international court of justice ICJ uses the definition of genocide that i do and will get a chance to rule against Israel for committing genocide in a few days.
Besides South Africa who brought the accusation Israel to the ICJ, a nation all too familiar with genocide and apartheid, many other countries are on board with the accusation.
Which countries have welcomed South Africa’s ICJ case against Israel?
The Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC): The 57-member bloc, which includes Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan and Morocco, voiced their support for the case on December 30.
Malaysia: In a statement released on January 2, the Malaysian Ministry of Foreign Affairs welcomed the South African application. It reiterated a call for an independent Palestinian state “based on the pre-1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital”.
Turkey: Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Oncu Keceli posted on X on January 3 welcoming South Africa’s move.
Jordan: Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi said on January 4 that Amman would back South Africa.
Bolivia: On Sunday, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Bolivia dubbed South Africa’s move as historic, becoming the first Latin American country to back the ICJ case against Israel.
Besides countries, many advocacy groups and civil society groups worldwide have also joined South Africa’s cal
The trial of the war criminal Jews has begun.
“The brilliant presentation by the South African Team is a very, very strong case… The body of evidence to be presented is overwhelming and it
connects so many statements of intent to genocide from all high level
officials of the Israeli government with action son the ground. For example “Defense minister” saying we will starve them and deny water and medicine for 2.3 million with actual execution. Video of Netanyahu addressing soldiers and invoking Amalek (biblical enemy that Israelites were told by God to kill all their women and Children) is paired with
videos of soldiers bragging about killing women and children and also
invoking “Amalek”. Eight South African judges are great minds and the
evidence is overwhelming.”
It’s a 4 hour video
https://webtv.un.org/en/asset/k11/k11gf661b3
Pro-Palestinian Speech Is Still Free Speech
Pro-Hamas speech is neither Pro-Jewish nor Pro-Palestinian.
And while it is free speech, it is also free speecb to say:
Fuck Off, Nazi!
The hair.
I get paid more than $120 to $130 every hour for working on the web. I found out about this activity 3 months prior and subsequent to joining this I have earned Qf effectively $15k from this without having internet working abilities Copy underneath site to..
Check It—>>> http://Www.Smartcareer1.com
Nobody gives a fuck what you think, Rob “the Nazi” Misek. Kill yourself by carving off your tiny cock and balls and bleeding out.
Go to a collage campus and start chanting “from the pacific to the pond all the nefros will be gone” see ho fast you get arrested
Or just beaten to death by a mob.
You needn’t say anything at all to get beaten to death by a mob.
I guess you only ban it, cancel it, suppress it and call it hate speech when you hate and disagree with the message and the people delivering it.
..and there’s the rub. Calling for violence in jest or real is the limit on free speech.
Unless you call out irregularities in an election, then that is call insurrection. Or apparently call an illegal alien in NYC an illegal alien. Also, calling a Dinger a Dinger was some sort of crime too. Then there are the cosplay pronouns…
No. It is insurrection when you call out irregularities in an election where a Democrat is declared the winner. You are defending “Democracy” and civil rights otherwise (see Staxey Abrams).
Stacey Abrams is (D)ifferent.
And this is why you oppose free speech?
Robby can’t seem to appreciate the difference between censoring non-violent political speech and limiting violent, libelous calls for imminent lawless actions (including calls for genocide of all Jews) i.e. pro-Palestinian screech.
His main argument is also ridiculous: because conservatives didn’t like being censored now they shouldn’t try and censor the leftists back? Even when they really do have a case, a much better one than what the leftists ever had? Nonsense.
Not only that but Robby is perfectly fine with any censorship of conservatives so why should they care about how much he supports terrorists and their mouthpieces?
Robbie seems to be a devout Christian.
>”But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.”
I kinda like Anton LaVey’s version of the Reciprocity Ethic: When someone does you a good turn, do them twice the good turn, but if thine enemy smites thee, smash his skull in!
🙂
😉
There is a difference.
It’s also one that the First Amendment largely doesn’t care about.
The cause/effect between your speech and criminal activity needs to be exceedingly strong before the First Amendment lets the government censor private speech, and none of these cases even come close.
You interpret a college student chanting, “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” as an imminent call to lawless action to commit genocide of Jews?
Democrats lie to us; Republicans lie to themselves…
So what does it mean then, in your estimation?
In the usual context, it appears to be used to show support for Palestinians and oppose Israel’s actions in Palestine. It also rhymes, making it a great protest chant.
What’s happening with “from the river to the sea” is like imputing the worst possible interpretation of the slogan, like “All Lives Matter”, to mean “Black Lives do not Matter”, and then excoriating anyone who uses the ALM slogan as “racist”.
The problem, Robbie, is that anti-Jewish speech is the ONLY kind of intentionally offensive speech that is being permitted on campuses. The naked bigotry of making this carve-out to speech codes just for Jews is being denounced. Calling that a call for more censorship is retarded.
How everyone doesn’t see the blatant hypocrisy is beyond me. How any of those three presidents tried to say they were committed to free speech and weren’t immediately laughed out of the hearing is beyond me.
We have had milquetoast conservative speakers and student groups removed from campuses. Heck some of that extends to liberal oriented speakers who just haven’t fully bought in to the progressive paradigm.
To paraphrase an old bumper sticker about abortion:
Democrats: Regulate all speech except criticism of Israel.
Republicans: Regulate no speech except criticism of Israel.
“anti-Jewish speech is the ONLY kind of intentionally offensive speech that is being permitted on campuses.”
All the more reason to protect it, nu?
All the more reason to ignore the trueman asshole:
mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
“Spouting nonsense is an end in itself.”
I’m shocked there are people who don’t have him muted.
Me, too. The last thing you guys want is to be confronted with challenging points of view.
Shut it down, now!
And continue to ignore the infringements on all speech reflecting non democrat beliefs, right? That’s really what you mean.
It’s about protecting free speech. Whether or not you ignore it is up to you.
Are Republicans using federal dollars to create agencies to coordinate censorship with major companies to shut down the speech? So far it is independent business owners and posting images of speakers.
A bit quick to scream censorship after yelling private company in defense of agencies like CISA robby.
SJP’s speech deserves criticism; a toolkit circulated by the group does in fact celebrate the slaughter of Israeli citizens on October 7 as “a historic win for the Palestinian resistance.”
The toolkit is pushed out by Hamas linked group. Hamas is listed as a terror group. Utilization of said propaganda and tools has long fallen under siding and abetting of enemy groups. This is indeed a violation of terms of immigration VISAs.
Again. This is a far cry from the federal government sending the FBI to SV companies and funding groups promoting specific censorship. And need I remind you the authors here defended the above for years under the guise of muh private companies.
A toolkit from Hamas pushed out by immigrants on VISAs as part of disruptive demonstrations at multiple points across the country to influence policy isn’t aiding and abetting the enemy or terrorism, but free speech, and the opposition is censorship, but parents speaking up a their local PTA meetings about the sexualization of their own children is due red meat for the DOJ because of the rising specter of “Don’t Say Gay” and violent Christian Nationalists.
And Robby says, “‘Those Don’t Say Gay’ Christian Nationalists better watch it with their illiberalism or it’s going to turn around and bite them in the ass.”
“Some collusion: bad; other collusion…”
CAMPUS FREE SPEECH
Pro-Palestinian Speech Is Still Free Speech
(1) These students are not engaging in “pro-Palestinian speech”, they are engaging in “pro-terrorist speech” and “pro-genocide speech”. Hamas is not “pro-Palestinian”.
(2) No matter how often you repeat it, there is no such thing as “campus free speech”. The federal government routinely restricts speech on campuses. Speech supporting terrorism, the overthrow of the US government, or totalitarian leaders/ideologies (Marx, Stalin, Che, Castro, etc.) has no place at institutions of higher learning, at least not those that receive taxpayer funding.
“Fuck the hate speech code”, I always said, dutifully paraphrasing Cohen v. California.
Should they bar this speech?
No.
But given how much they do bar, I have difficulty finding much empathy here.
I don’t see why they shouldn’t bar this speech. Universities are professional environments, like other workplaces. People are not free to say whatever they want in their workplace without the risk of getting fired.
“People are not free to say whatever they want in their workplace without the risk of getting fired.”
People are free to say what they like in the work place. Don’t equate freedom of speech and freedom from risk.
Great. They can say what they want on campus. Just expel the ones engaging in pro Hamas speech.
“Just expel the ones engaging in pro Hamas speech.”
What’s with these milquetoast responses? Why not round them up and jail them? They are engaging in pro Hamas speech, as you say.
^this
Sorry, double edged sword and all that.
But will they learn their lesson? not a chance.
The left engaged in censorship first, so that makes it ok when the right does it.
The left censors/bans harmless conservative speech. The right (in this case) wants to stop violent rhetoric on tax funded campuses.
The difference is obvious when you’re not a partisan hack.
I’m sure the left would disagree on your description of conservative speech being “harmless.” Just as I’m sure they’d consider pro-Israel rhetoric to be quite violent given how many Palestinians they’re killing every day.
Thank you for proving my point, which is that you have given up on having the moral high ground, and are instead in a contest to see who can be more evil.
Thank you for proving my point, which is that you have given up on having the moral high ground, and are instead in a contest to see who can be more evil.
Holding the moral high ground is pointless when the cultural high ground is being used to destroy you.
When the left agrees to a common cultural consensus that basic American principles should go both ways, instead of indulging in a belief that doing so is an exercise in repressive tolerance, then a return to political amiability will be possible.
Sarc is in no position to talk about the moral high ground, anyway.
Whoosh …
The “moral high ground” has been of precisely zero value to date.
Perhaps it is not as vital as you pretend it to be. After all, the people on the moral high ground are expected to simply roll over for those who do not wish to have said high ground.
Whoosh…
Sarc, the other day you were complaining about people stating the same point over and over, while you post this same schtick constantly, in almost every thread.
Self awareness isn’t exactly Sarc’s thing.
Plus, he’s drunk again.
When was he ever not?
Want to say whatever you think, including insulting and attacking other people and groups? Fine. Want to do it with my money? Nope.
End the tax dollar gravy train for higher ed.
Well said.
2016: Execute Trump!
‘The Right’: You hate us cuz you ain’t us.
2020: Mostly-peaceful protests.
‘The Right’: We can peacefully protest too!
2022: Turns out, we censored some viewpoints and probably killed some people by withholding information that could’ve kept them alive.
‘The Right’: See! We told you!
Robbie: The Right is insensitive to the distinction between political protests and calls to violence and death in the streets.
Go fuck yourself Robbie, you have a repeatedly-demonstrated tolerance for people getting killed by “free speech” and “mostly peaceful assembly” you do like and for the censorship of speech you don’t like.
Reason has completely frozen out any voice supportive of the Palestinian cause. I don’t believe I’ve seen a single article outlining the Palestinian case. Reason has ignored the charges of genocide against Israel leveled by South Africa. In short, the coverage is abominable.
But according to Reason, the threat to free speech is not the biased reporting in its own pages and the rest of the media, it comes from students and the posturing politicians. Though reason doesn’t go there, it also comes from billionaires who threaten anyone expressing views contrary to the pro Israeli orthodoxy of Biden, deSantis and the rest of them.
Reason IS free to publish anything about the conflict. But that freedom is meaningless if it is too gutless and intimidated to exercise it.
Fuck off Nazi scum.
You’re the supporter of genocide and apartheid. You’re also an imbecile.
Genocide and apartheid – two words that apply more accurately to the palestinians than to the israelis.
Let me know when the Palestinians cut the water supply to Israel. Until then, you have nothing but name calling and bluster to offer.
Palestinians don’t supply water to Israel, and never have. So by your bizarro logic, you should be denouncing them for that act of genocide.
“Palestinians don’t supply water to Israel, and never have. ”
Also imbecilic. It’s the Israelis who are depriving Palestinians of water, fuel, food, etc. Not the other way round.
“you should be denouncing them for that act of genocide”
I am denouncing Israel for this act of genocide, and so would you if you took the trouble to learn the facts.
There’s a reason we call you “misconstrueman” here as you tend to misconstrue those facts.
If you want to argue the substance of what I write, nobody is stopping you. The fact that name calling is all you’ve got to fall back on tells me you’re an ignorant imbecile. Maybe not as stupid and tedious as our friend VinniUSMC, but close. Your comments are also illustrative of the intellectual bankruptcy of those who cheer on apartheid, ethnic cleansing and genocide. Joe Biden is senile. What’s your excuse?
You have no substance. You just copy and paste. By your own admission….
Fuck off and die, Nazi shit.
It’s Reason that is lacking substance. Aside from endless whining about antiwar students at elite colleges. Here’s my substance filled comment that neither you or anyone else has the brains or guts to respond to. Perhaps you missed it:
Reason has completely frozen out any voice supportive of the Palestinian cause. I don’t believe I’ve seen a single article outlining the Palestinian case. Reason has ignored the charges of genocide against Israel leveled by South Africa. In short, the coverage is abominable.
But according to Reason, the threat to free speech is not the biased reporting in its own pages and the rest of the media, it comes from students and the posturing politicians. Though reason doesn’t go there, it also comes from billionaires who threaten anyone expressing views contrary to the pro Israeli orthodoxy of Biden, deSantis and the rest of them.
Reason IS free to publish anything about the conflict. But that freedom is meaningless if it is too gutless and intimidated to exercise it.
(I copied and pasted it to save time and effort. Mea Culpa, moron.)
Aren’t you just here to spew nonsense, by your own admission?
“Aren’t you just here to spew nonsense, by your own admission?”
Not just to spew nonsense, as a careful review of my comments will make clear. But it’s true, I love nonsense, and I’ve found that it’s the best way to respond to tiresome and inane comments such as yours. Otherwise, still waiting for you to come up with something substantive. Name calling is fun and you’re well practiced at it, but it doesn’t reflect well on the Israeli cause. Doesn’t convince anyone, doesn’t free any hostages, doesn’t bring about a peaceful solution.
If you want to argue the substance of what I write, nobody is stopping you. The fact that name calling is all you’ve got to fall back on tells me you’re an ignorant imbecile. Maybe not as stupid and tedious as our friend VinniUSMC, but close. Your comments are also illustrative of the intellectual bankruptcy of those who cheer on apartheid, ethnic cleansing and genocide. Joe Biden is senile. What’s your excuse?
Thanks for the compliment. Unfortunately for you, most of us are smarter than you, and understand that the only substance you have proven is that you are a shit-eating Nazi. Fuck off Nazi scum.
“Thanks for the compliment.”
My comment wasn’t complimentary.
If the Palestinians were deprived of potable water and they were drinking sea water, the entirety of Gaza would be dead from kidney failure and thirst in three days and there would be no one left!
Fuck Off, Dummy Watermelon Rickshaw Nazi Boy!
Needless to say (I’d have thought), the cutting off of water supplies refers to water supply infrastructure, not the elimination of all possible sources of potable water, e.g., bottled water, tanker trucks.
They were claiming early on after October 7 that Gazans were drinking sea water. Judging from Gazans continued occupation of coordinates on Earth, I doubt the Israelis even cut all the infrastructure.
Those “they” are certainly useful people…
“If the Palestinians were deprived of potable water and they were drinking sea water, the entirety of Gaza would be dead from kidney failure and thirst in three days and there would be no one left!”
You really should pass this along to Bibi and the gang. They seem starved for ideas.
As hard-knocks-trained Preppers for all kinds of Shit-Hits-The-Fan (SHTF) scenarios, Israelis know this fact already and didn’t use this fact to commit genocide!
Fuck Off, Dummy Watermelon Rickshaw Nazi Boy!
Apologies, my below comment was for misconstrueman, not you!
No. You’re a Jew-hater, and it is you who are in support of genocide and apartheid, not to mention fundamentalism and terror, as well as rape, torture, and all the other horrible thing that your beloved Islamists did to innocent people.
Be fair. Bertram Guilfoyle is a supporter of genocide, apartheid and a few other bad things. But I see no reason to call him a Jew hater. If anything, he seems to be inordinately fond of them.
“Be fair…”
Fine:
Eat shit and die, Nazi scum.
Oops. Of course, that comment was meant for you. Too bad reason uses the most ridiculous and inept comment system in existence.
“Too bad reason uses the most ridiculous and inept comment system in existence.”
It’s downright antisemitic if you ask me.
You’re the supporter of genocide and apartheid.
Fuck off retarded Nazi scum.
Looks like you’re responding to mtrueman.
Let me second this: mtrueman is Nazi scum. mtrueman supports genocide, ethnic cleansing, and anti-Semitism.
In other words, you have nothing of substance to say. Just empty name calling. Not only is it boring, it speaks volumes to the intellectual bankruptcy of the Israeli case.
“You’re the supporter of genocide and apartheid. You’re also an imbecile.”
Is this empty name calling or no?
It’s accurate name calling.
When others do it, it’s empty; when you do it, it’s accurate. You sound a lot like some of the other posters here.
Fuck off Nazi scum. Is that imbecilic and devoid of substantive content? Maybe not to you, but it is to me. Deal with it.
Fuck off and die, Nazi scum.
Better, asshole?
I’ve never claimed “Fuck off Nazi scum” provides any substantive content. I’m merely pointing out that you are Nazi sum. And Nazi scum are worthy of one thing only, death. The wood chipper has your name on it.
So, once again, fuck off Nazi scum.
I had to paint the thing with chalkboard paint so we could keep up, but yes, this is true.
“I’ve never claimed “Fuck off Nazi scum” provides any substantive content.”
You’re not such an idiot after all.
Reason has completely frozen out any voice supportive of the Palestinian cause
There is no ‘Palestinian cause’.
There is no ‘Palestine’–it’s a name made up by the Romans to piss off the Jews when THEY were conquering and occupying the Jewish homeland.
“There is no ‘Palestinian cause’.”
Which made up names would you prefer? How about the human animal cause, or if you’re into the whole alliteration thing, the cockroach cause. Both are fine alternatives for dehumanizing genocide boosters like yourself.
Just to be pedantic, it was actually a Greek word for the region used by Herodotus in the 4th century BC. One potential origin is that it is a translation of the meaning of “Israel” into Greek.
I would presume it related to the Philistines. Who occupied what is now the Gaza Strip. But yes, the Romans took the Greek name and forcibly renamed Judea when they kicked the Jews out after the Bar Kohkba rebellion.
Any Arabs in the area are colonizers.
They’re are no reasonable pro Palestinian voices.
After the terrorist group Hamas killed approximately 1,200 Israeli civilians on October 7
Fact Check: Approximately 800 civilians were killed, around 400 more were IDF, Shin Bet and police. (Some unknown number were “collateral damage” from the IDF’s response but I have no objections to holding Hamas responsible)
“IDF’s response but I have no objections to holding Hamas responsible”
Perhaps blaming Hamas makes you feel good, but it was the IDF who is responsible for keeping the Palestinians caged. They did nothing to stop the Palestinians escaping and attacking despite being warned. They also killed hundreds of Israeli citizens due to ill training and poor leadership. But don’t blame the IDF.
You remind me of the writer here a few days ago, attempting to blame the debacle on, I shit you not, ‘intelligence failures’ despite the fact that Israeli intelligence had been keeping an eye on Gaza, noticed something was suspicious, and passed along the warnings to the IDF and the politicians who chose to ignore them.
So blame Hamas. Blame the intelligence agencies. But don’t blame the IDF or Bibi. They are above criticism.
The people who deliberately and specifically attacked civilian targets are made excuses for. The people who planned and carried out the killings are responsible for them, whatever the failures of the people defending them were.
“The people who deliberately and specifically attacked civilian targets are made excuses for. ”
Only if they kill in the thousands. Less than that, there is no excuse.
See folks, another example of the intellectual bankruptcy that apologists for genocide, apartheid and ethnic cleansing are willing to sink to.
See folks, another example of the intellectual bankruptcy that apologists for genocide, apartheid and ethnic cleansing are willing to sink to.
Yes, you are a prime example. Fuck off Nazi scum.
You beat me to it.
I don’t think mturdman gets it. Y’all are being rather peaceful by my standards.
Yes, I flat out support dragging every last asshole out of the Gaza Strip and deporting them elsewhere. I support shooting the ones who refuse to leave. They had several chances, they fucked up each time, game over. Send ’em all to Yemen, I don’t care.
I support doing similar things here to the worthless commies and socialists and wokist Marxist scum. Only, there’s no “deportation” option on the table. Woodchippers all the way. Feet first, live.
Fuck you shitheads.
And despite clearly wanting to act just like them, for some reason, you don’t like Nazis. Odd.
I’m not objecting to the attribution of 1200 deaths from the 10/7 attack to Hamas even if a few, or a few hundred were caused by IDF shells, rockets and gunfire
How do you feel about intelligence failures? Are they enough to exonerate Bibi and the gang? Or do you blame Hamas for them as well?
There was no intelligence failure per se, the Israeli government received intel on the Hamas preparation. They dismissed it as they believed they lacked capabilities to carry out such massive attack.
Hamas had applied for work permits in Israel and showed other indications that they were willing to cooperate. Israel deluded themselves into thinking the “two state solution” was workable.
Your selective outrage makes no sense. Who actually gave supplies to Hamas so they can build tunnels, rockets, etc? The UN. But I’m not going to hold them responsible for any genocide, which has been perpetuated by the terrorists.
Do you think the world would have supported a preemptive Israeli strike to stop 10/7? Give me a break. Hindsight is 20/20.
Fact check appreciated.
Hamas is a vile cabal of homicidal religious nutjobs, so we expect (and even understand) when they pervert the truth in order to advance their cause. It’s what they do.
However, Israel is a modern democracy which supposedly adheres to high Western standards, so we do not agree or accept when they (if indeed they) attempt to conflate civilian and military casualties, or spread lies about the events which have occurred, or indiscriminately kill Gaza civilians during their justified quest to eliminate Hamas.
Double standards, perhaps?
>>Republicans appeared to understand this reality when administrators censored conservative speech, yet now they are pining for safe spaces.
bro you cited one and everybody already knew Governor Boots to be a bit authoritarian
>Republicans should remember that they have spent years railing against censorship on college campuses.
Make your enemies live up to their own standards, eh, Soave?
What’s happening here is the Left’s own rules are being applied to the Left – if they don’t like it, *they* can start supporting free speech. Until then its just an argument over who controls speech.
I certainly have no sympathy for pro Hamas protestors. In addition to mass murdering innocent Israeli citizens, Hamas took American hostages. So fuck their supporters.
Whooshiwoo…
It’s not free speech once you cross that line and literal call for violence, especially when it’s done by a mob chasing after Jewish students.
This sort of thing is how pogroms happen, and if a society lets it be, it’s how the Holocaust happened.
Yes, it is the “literal call for violence” part which seems most problematic for some folks.
Do you mean “literally” literal, or “figuratively” literal? There is a difference.
Pretty sure that if only speech were going on here, then the pro-Nazi terrorist supporters would have a better free speech argument. The problem is that they threaten, defame, vandalize, disrupt the peace, bully, assault, and kill Jews. None of that is free speech.
As for colleges, whatever they’re doing (hint: DEI) that is creating all these pro-Nazi terrorist supporters needs to be ended immediately.
Nazis aren’t known for being particularly keen on free speech. Perhaps you have them confused with someone else?
Don’t you mean Marxists?
(Also not known for being ardent free speech supporters, but one step at a time…)
LOL, in the last hundred instances of campus censorship efforts we finally found one that isnt 100% from the extreme left, so let’s call it out .
amazing.
It’s even worse than that. There has been no “campus censorship efforts” against the pro-Palestinian demonstrators. Rather, there has been some outside criticism of lack of any response to those demonstrators by the very same administrators who come down like a ton of bricks on much more mild “politically incorrect” speech. And that is what Mr. Soave is complaining about.
So you think you’re owed a “free one”, lol…
pro-Palestinian students have an ironclad First Amendment right to express that heinous view
They absolutely do.
But they don’t have an ironclad first amendment right to send money to terrorists……which is something they also do.
They should have the right to send money to anyone.
And the right to be charged with conspiracy to commit murder and destruction of property if they do.
That is not how criminal law works in the US. But for the 1st Amendment, speech supporting terrorism would also be illegal in the US. It is an exception to a rule, not a free for all.
And they have no ironclad right to attend any particular university while threatening or intimidating other students, faculty and staff.
Criticizing the government of Israel, or expressing sympathy for the Gazans is one thing, but calls for a “global intifada” are not some abstract political statement, they are a threat to bring violence to one’s own community, based on religious intolerance and bigotry.
You are inadvertently illustrating why it is dangerous to allow the government to, in another popular situation, decide which items of speech social media sites should ban.
Your interpretation of others’ speech is (and is intended to be) absolute and uncontestable–despite being categorically absurd in most college campus situations. Imagine giving government the power to enforce your decisions at the point of a gun…
Kids these days
When Jews are convicted for committing genocide in Gaza by the international court of justice, what will all these fuckwits posting here do?
Crawl back under their rocks?
Call everyone Nazis?
Walk willingly to the gallows with Netanyahu?
Time will tell.
You will still be a Jew-hater and the ICJ will still be the laughingstock of the world.
I do hate genocide.
But who will fund Israel once convicted for all the world to see, the US?
How could Israel be left to govern anyone or anything?
You could stay in Palestine, powerless and without friends.
Then we’ll see how you cowards fare when you try to kill women and children.
Gaza made the same kind of choice Japan did on December 7, 1941.
Gaza now has the same kind of choices Japan had on August 5, 1945!
Do you mean the non combatants intentionally killed to make a political statement in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Terrorist Jews already threatened to use nukes in Gaza they aren’t supposed to have.
Bullshit!
Fuck Off, Nazi!
The wrong side won WW2, right Misek?
“Do you mean the non combatants intentionally killed to make a political statement in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?”
LOL, what a moron.
.
I am pretty sure that’s an overstatement. Yes, I know, the Supreme Court said that Nazis could march through Skokie, IL. But you’d think there’d be a limit to what Nazi (or “pro-Palestinian”) demonstrators are constitutionally entitled to do on a college campus.
And what about private colleges & universities? They aren’t limited by the First Amendment, yet they don’t seem to be any more inclined to do anything about these crazed “anti-Zionist” protesters than public schools. (And, of course, both private and public schools have had no problem censoring “politically incorrect” (i.e., conservative) speech for years, the First Amendment notwithstanding.)
There are no “private” colleges — they all take federal money, in one way or another. And the First Amendment isn’t the governing law, it’s the federal Civil Rights Act. Universities have a legal (and moral) duty to make their campuses a safe place for anyone belonging to a federally protected class, such as race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, sex, etc. Universities aren’t local governments that can only wring their hands at abhorrent speech that threatens and intimidates a portion of their students, staff, and faculty, they can suspend or expel anyone who doesn’t follow their rules for maintaining order on the campus.
The Civil Rights Act does not overrule the First Amendment…
The Civil Rights Act explicitly abridges freedom of association. It does so until the courts say it doesn’t.
Thanks Robbie. Fighting the censorship of political views should be a common cause at this libertarian website. It is very much the rage among progressive colleges against conservative and libertarian viewpoints. But we don’t fix that problem by supporting it when we oppose the views. Clearly not many of that political stripe among the commenters. Sigh
I get the concept of the worst speech is free speech.
But I don’t think the campuses are town squares. The people running the schools do need to assure safety of the students and to have no association of the school with terrorist organizations.
This is especially true of private institutions. The 1st amendment applies to government and not to private institutions.
Excellent correction!
Will be Great! if humanity front of our hearts