The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
USC Dismisses Charges Against Professor Who Said Hamas Should Be Killed
From the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) (assembled from the Twitter thread, with some nonsubstantive modifications):
USC has just dismissed charges against a professor who was filmed telling a group of protesters last fall, "Hamas are murderers. That's all they are. Every one should be killed, and I hope they all are."
Following the on-campus exchange last November, students launched an online petition and filed formal complaints calling for Prof. John Strauss's termination, accusing him of discrimination, harassment, and fostering an unsafe environment. USC spent 7 months "investigating" the <2-minute exchange caught on film and finally determined Strauss did not engage in discrimination or harassment, and his conduct did not create a hostile environment.
USC's policies promise to protect faculty speech from institutional censorship or discipline — even when others disagree or feel offended. But for Prof. Strauss, voicing his opinion got him a 1mo. campus ban and a 7mo. investigation. While we're thrilled to learn Prof. Strauss won't face additional sanctions for his speech, it's important to remember that a 7-month investigation based on clearly protected political speech is enough to chill speech for both Strauss and the larger USC community.
Colleges and universities must strive to be places of free inquiry, open dialogue, and rigorous debate. When Strauss directly engaged with protesters sharing a message he disagreed with, he was embodying — not undermining — that goal.
For more details on the underlying incident, see this post.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Consider for a moment the general statement, "X are murderers. That's all they are. Every one should be killed, and I hope they all are." It seems to me there are many values of X where this constitutes a direct call to violence, not protected by the first amendment, in clear violation of campus hate speech laws, and a just cause for termination. I agree that USC made the right decision here in the end, but I don't see this as an easy or obvious one, and I don't agree with the characterization of this as "clearly protected political speech" since it seems, to me at least, to be quite close to the line by calling for the deaths of a group of people (terrorists).
Would it not be relevant that such a view is official us state department policy?
It might be, if you hadn't made that fact up.
Hamas isn't officially designated a terrorist group?
Hamas is designated a terrorist group. That does not mean that U.S. policy is "Every one should be killed."
Could one agitate for that policy, as warmaking is a government power, if government censors?
I see you made no comment on the offended people also advocating death for strangers, in fact applauding the deaths they already caused.
One group applauding actual deaths. One person expressing the natural opinion that those murderers should die for their sins. And one offended parasite.
Fuck off, slaver.
That may be the stupidest comment I've ever read here. Did you not understand the part where he wrote that he agreed with the USC decision? All he wrote was that the specific speech in question was not clearly protected political speech. Did anything in your "reply" even tangentially address that point? Can you even understand that point? Truly pathetic.
He agreed "in the end." A more limp excuse is hard to fathom.
No, USC made the right decision "in the end," he doesn't agree "in the end." And at any rate, that's a pretty thin reed to justify telling someone to fuck off slaver. Just because his hot take isn't as hot as yours?
I think you should absolutely call other people parasites as you talk about how bad Hamas is.
And then make an assumption because this guy didn't explicitly declaim loving Hamas.
It really adds some contradictory tension to your rhetoric.
And if it annoyed you enough to respond, it was an excellent comment.
Ah. You shit your pants on purpose.
What a master of puppets you are.
You’re being a dick again, Sarcastro.
Sorry I gotta point it out when someone does the equivalent of ‘I hate the Nazis, and you should be boxcared to a concentration camp and gassed for not agreeing with me in your previous comment.’
Who said what about boxcars now?
Let's tease this out a bit.
The US, and California specifically, still has the death penalty. Suppose a professor said "convicted murderer X has been on death row for 10 years now, it's time we end Newsom''s moratorium and put X to death , as decreed in a court of law, along with the other 650 people on CA's death row - they are all murderers and rapists"- are you seriously suggesting such a clear call for the death of a group of people would not be protected speech?
I agree that in both your example and the professor’s example, it should be considered protected speech. But there’s a line depending on what specific group you’re talking about, and the professor is edging close to it. If instead of “Hamas” they had said “Palestinians” or “Israelis” they would have been over it. In my opinion they would have been over it if they’d said “IDF” or “Hamas and Hamas supporters,” although reasonable people might disagree. It’s not so easy to know where to draw the line.
Pray we don't get into an existential war ever again, where dehumanization of krauts or japs is useful motivation. Support massive over-militarization so there is never a threat of it again.
Then we can sit here, ennobled in our attitudes, looking down on those barbarians of the past.
Krayt, they guy who has turned not trusting the government into a whole set of stories he tells: 'Propaganda might be vital one day, so you should love it!'
"It seems to me there are many values of X where this constitutes a direct call to violence, not protected by the first amendment, in clear violation of campus hate speech laws, and a just cause for termination."
Even if we accept the rather dubious premise, what is the argument that "terrorists" are one of the values of X?
What's the argument that calling for the death of terrorists isn't clearly protected political speech?
I’m not saying that “terrorists” is such a value of X. However, i would argue that “Palestinians”, “Jews”, and “Israelis” all are. Would you agree with that?
Not typically. Brandenburg is narrow. "All X should be killed" is protected speech unless it's a situation where imminent lawless action is likely. Say "All Jews/Palestinians should be killed" to a mob when a Jew/Palestinian is walking by… problematic. Merely advocating for that in a non-emergent situation is protected. (Still might be punishable on a campus for creating a hostile environment, though.)
I'd concede it for the sake of argument. But that just means that your generalization is broad enough to be useless. There's no principle under which "Jews are murders...every one should be killed" would be unprotected speech that out extend to "People who raped and murdered Jewish girls on 10/7 are murders, every one should be killed" outside of direct incitement under Brandenburg.
Except we aren't talking about a religious, ethnic group, or even a company.
We are talking about a recognized terrorist organization. A terrorist organization that has a 5 digit body count going back over decades.
Additionally, I have heard almost identical phasing used against oil companies. Calling for the executives to be executed for "crimes against the planet". Needless to say no one was investigated for that.
Nobody at the university, presumably, is a member of Hamas. Not sure how such a statement can be discriminatory or harassing in any way that matters, even if Hamas *wasn't* a terrorist organization.
Yes, but there probably are students who agree with exterminating the Jews. The professor's comments could be seen as hostile to that position.
"I feel threatened by those who are threatened by me."
There are members of Hamas at UMass...
You saw their membership cards?
No need. They dress like Hamas, speak like Hamas, and share the same "values" as Hamas. They are not hard to identify. Hell, they are hard to avoid.
"Dress like" Hamas? What does that mean? They wear the Hamas jersey with the uniform number on the back? (If it means that they wear a keffiyeh, that's not something distinct to Hamas.)
I would prefer to let the words fly and see debate on the underlying premises. I believe that stone-age tribal societies , Canaanite, Indigenous people, or Palestinians and Islamist colleagues, cannot co-exist with humanist modern societies. The historical truth is that by genocide or conquest they have been removed. If not, Pittsburgh today might be under Iran-supplied rockets from Ohio Valley tribes.
So, remove the unprotected threat and substitute with the question how is the best way to pacify this group, or , who do you want to win.
Is the blog cutting back on comment threads?
never mind
Since when was killing terrorists considered controversial?
October 7, 2023.
He was correct. Hamas is a murdering bunch of barbarians that needs to be wiped out.