610 Comments
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

😏

Expand full comment

Pretty ballsy of you to argue Palestinians are human beings ENTITLED to equal rights, frankly quite shocking to hear.

Expand full comment

Why? Isn't that just a plain fact?

It's not like they come from space. They're made from the same flesh and blood as the rest of us.

Expand full comment

Sarcasm

Expand full comment

Even then, I don't quite get it. I've heard many attempts to justify the slaughter of Palestinians, but very few that argue they're subhuman.

Expand full comment

The justification of slaughtering a group of people (a component of genocide) is de-facto dehumanization.

Expand full comment

You haven't heard some of the radical Zionists.

Expand full comment

“ civil liberties”

I’ve never understood private universities and employers having any “civil liberties” obligations. It’s “their” blog, law firm, university, etc. “they” can be as liberal with the proverbial ban hammer as they want.

Expand full comment

Exceptions for private corporations that run communication and utility platforms that dominate. And you must bake that wedding cake despite your beliefs.

Expand full comment

Well, which is it?

Expand full comment

If your private utility company can shut off your power because of your Trump sign in your yard… if Google bans you from advertising and makes your search hits go away because you support Israel… I think that is a 1A problem. Otherwise I agree.

Expand full comment

How does baking the cake apply to free expression? I think this is more about public accommodation, a different thing. Actually the defense to not baking the cake is because it’s forced expression.

Expand full comment

As for "baking the cake," you are mistaking compelled speech for anti-discrimination. See my full argument here: https://christophersmith.substack.com/p/on-free-expression-and-303-creative

Google, et al. control the pipes through which communication flows, but nobody is making them say anything with which they disagree. Making the homophobic baker design a gay wedding cake would be like mandating Google run a "Trump 2024" banner on its home page.

Expand full comment

Legally, yes, but culturally I think it would be a big problem if we abandoned a robust support for free expression even in private settings. I thought this was all worked out when I was young, but obviously it has to be re-learned continuously.

Expand full comment

What free expression rights do I have in private settings? I wasn’t aware that I had any or any expectation of having any.

Expand full comment

You don’t, legally. I was commenting on how culturally it’s important anyway to push for free expression. It’s really to me by far the most important thing we have. So I’m agreeing with you but stressing that even though there isn’t a legal prohibition to private censorship we should treat it as a universal truth that everyone should be free to speak.

Expand full comment
Nov 13, 2023·edited Nov 13, 2023

So Freddie is wrong to ban those who bring up the thing that cannot be named?

I figure he has the right to cultivate the comment section as he sees fit.

Expand full comment

I think one can be for free speech and also put rules in place to limit speech, which is why it’s OK in some cases. The limits must be well thought out and have a good reason, and be narrowly defined. Similar to how even our government can limit speech. I really don’t see an inconsistency with Freddie’s approach. He seemed very conscious of what he was doing.

Expand full comment

I think it's a mistake, but I'm not going to make an ethical claim that he's wrong. I would prefer open discourse, and prefer cultural norms that allow it, but I have to admit that I would throw someone out of my garden party for using racial slurs against another guest, so evidently we all have limits.

Expand full comment

The government has already proven there’s no “private setting” if you get any funding in any form from the Fed’s.

Expand full comment

I think it’s cuz this buries the lede on legal class relations between individuals and corporations, and begs the question of “how far do constitutional rights extend to corporations operating as individuals?”

If corporate rights supersede individual rights under the contracted obligations of said entity, how protected are individual rights to begin with? What becomes legally prioritized is revealing of class interests.

Expand full comment

Yeah, fire someone based on their race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity and watch what happens. I've come around to the idea that politics and opinion should be a protected category from discrimination in the workplace just like race, sex and the others.

Business and employment are highly regulated, I see no reason at this point not to crack down legally on political and ideological discrimination.

Expand full comment
Nov 14, 2023·edited Nov 14, 2023

Opinion? So I can call our largest customer as a cu$t to her face and keep my Job? I mean it’s just my opinion. And hell, maybe it’s a fact.

Expand full comment

Any chance you can get your friend Bari Weiss to have you back on to discuss this line?

"A bunch of the people who have dined out on free speech for years are saying nothing because Zionism is more dear to them than civil liberties, and now it’s time for all of us to state your basic allegiances when it comes to free expression."

Expand full comment
Removed (Banned)Nov 14, 2023
Comment removed
Expand full comment

There are so many "those people are hypocrites who would never say X" arguments that get a response of "wait they said X right here, just click this link please" and then get forgotten for a few days only to show right back up again in a few days.

Expand full comment
author

I mean, what would we talk about? Bari has very clearly decided that she's a Zionist first, second, and third. I don't know how productive it would be.

Expand full comment

I believe she also sees herself as a free speech absolutist. Reconciling the two would be something to talk about.

Expand full comment

I think what's being lost here is the difference btwn speaking and ACTIONS.

Expand full comment

Like pounding on locked library doors while Jewish students are taking shelter inside? Sorry, much of this “From the river to the sea” stuff is incendiary if not actually inciting. A little prior restraint might be appropriate here to prevent actual violence against Jews.

Expand full comment

They could have hidden in the attic. \s

Expand full comment

Ouch! That’ll leave a mark.

Expand full comment

That's my point. Exactly.

Expand full comment

IIRC, Bari Weiss was all in favor of cancel culture, as long as it was used on people she didn't approve of.

Expand full comment

Seems at least not in this case: https://www.thefp.com/p/even-antisemites-deserve-free-speech

Expand full comment

I don't see a reference to Bari Weiss.

Expand full comment

You mean other than her being the EIC of the free press?

If she was in that in favor of suppressing speech she disagreed with one would think that she would do so on the speech that she has the most control over.

But instead she features it in a round up post https://www.thefp.com/p/free-speech-in-a-time-of-war, or green-light an article that interviews with pro Palestinian protestors https://www.thefp.com/p/we-went-to-a-pro-palestine-protest.

Expand full comment
Nov 13, 2023·edited Nov 13, 2023

https://www.thefp.com/p/we-went-to-a-pro-palestine-protest

Her paper went to a pro-Palestine protest, interviewed people, printed their arguments verbatim and responded with counterarguments, hoping to win in the marketplace of ideas. I don't think some of the counterarguments are very strong, but at least they're trying to sell them. What else should a free speech absolutist do?

Bari Weiss and her writers often accuse others of being hypocrites unless they censor pro-Palestine views. They insist that by the censorious standard of "cancel culture", pro-Palestine speech should be banned. For example, if Yale Law School would discipline a student for saying "trap house" they should discipline someone for calling Hamas violence justified. I've never liked this sort of "Well, by your logic" argumentation when applied to broad groups, but I would guess a call for consistency is how she'd justify asking for institutions to crack down on anti-Zionism (or whatever). This is a different argument than if something should be banned by her own standards.

Expand full comment

To be fair to Weiss is the issue free speech or is it violence (of the actual physical, sometimes people die variety)?

Expand full comment

My rules preferred over your rules.

Your rules fairly applied vastly preferred over your rules applied willy-nilly.

Expand full comment

It's very hard to feel sorry for 'protestors' who routinely call for the elimination of an entire race of people. Add to that, the fact that their leaders are rabidly religious(at least they say they are) and openly call for the removal of ALL religions but Islam from the face of the earth.

If Muslims want people to quit being 'afraid' of them....maybe they should tone down the rhetoric. I have yet to hear a Jew or Israeli vow to wipe Islam from the face of the earth.

Nobody believed Hitler would actually be as vile as he turned out to be....in spite of him saying it out loud over and over.

When zealots scream things out loud....like 'from the river to the sea,' you should believe it.

Remember, Hamas broke a cease fire to murder hundreds of Jews, most of them just civilians. This cannot be overlooked.

Having said that...this is NOT a fight the US should be involved in as a country. The Jews and Muslims have been fighting each other for hundreds of years. Not our monkeys, not our circus. We have problems of our own to solve.

We don't need to favor either side unless they attack US. Israel does not need aid. They are a rich country. If they want to buy stuff from us, fine, but we shouldn't be gifting them anything.

I am on Israel's side. I am NOT on the side of the vocal Palestinians. I AM on the side of the Palestinians that were used by Hamas as targets. They KNEW Israel had to retaliate in a big way to something so heinous. They have sacrificed Gaza while they all sit in Dubai and party down.

Expand full comment
author

In other words, you don't support free speech, and neither do the people liking this comment. "Oh in this case the speech is actually bad" is not a defense of free speech!

Expand full comment
author

"I have yet to hear a Jew or Israeli vow to wipe Islam from the face of the earth."

Lady, you really know nothing about Israel or its constituent politics. There are tons of Israelis who are extremist lunatics who want to kill all the Muslims! 10% of the country thinks Baruch Goldstein is a national hero! https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-733523

Expand full comment

I agree those extremists exist, but they are not staging protests in the west in any numbers, nor do they have elite backing.

Expand full comment

Team "kill all Palestinians" has very little backing, but team "force Palestinians into enclaves while Israel takes the rest of the land (and kill everyone who resists)" has the backing of every major Western institution. If the Palestinians proposed to form Palestine from the river to the sea with a reserved non-contiguous quasi-state for Jews (which is what the Israelis are proposing for the Palestinians!) they would call it genocide.

Expand full comment

Well, there's 'resisting' (and Israel has hardly killed everyone who's done *that*) and there's committing a massacre targeted at Jewish civilians. Which you have to admit, is what Hamas did.

Expand full comment
founding

John Hagee spoke at yesterday’s pro-Israel rally in DC and nobody opposed it. Seriously?

Expand full comment

Thought you were talking about Israel until I hit “Islam” 🤣

I don’t understand why you would post something if all you were gonna do is be a hypocrite. It’s not like any sensible person would agree with radical or extremist Islamist terrorism here, you’re just being disingenuous and constructing a sacred monolith to gore.

Expand full comment

Do you know what 'from the river to the sea' means?

Look it up.

I am not a hypocrite. I am just saying the obvious. Radical Islamists(MOST of the leaders fall into this category, certainly Hamas does) want to wipe every religion from the face of the earth except for Islam. This is not a secret. They say it all the time. Other people aren't 'interpreting' their words. They say it outright. JUST LIKE HITLER. In fact, many Muslim leaders were followers of Hitler in WWII.....but that has been glossed over in history.

It's like western people have a death wish......'Oh, don't be mean to the guy that says he wants to kill you....'

Expand full comment

I know that means and I know what I’m talking about, this regional conflict was my IR academic focus.

You have to accept the fact that you’re a hypocrite if you’re going to lump Palestinians and their defenders, as a group of people, under the totalizing umbrella of ideological governmental organizations like Hamas, and not Israelis and their defenders under the government of Israel.

You should try to read what Netanyahu and his settler front say outright, as in the interview included above.

Expand full comment
Removed (Banned)Nov 14, 2023
Comment removed
Expand full comment

Motte and Bailey + Strawman.

Expand full comment
founding

And Ben Gvir? Has someone reined him in, because last I checked the Israeli police were standing by while leftist Jews got mobbed

from their homes under his watch.

Expand full comment
Removed (Banned)Nov 15, 2023·edited Nov 15, 2023
Comment removed
Expand full comment
author

"From the river to the sea" does not and has never necessarily entailed wanting to kill Jews. For some people who say it, sure. But it's just a right-wing canard to pretend that it always or usually does.

Expand full comment

So you think the % of Muslims who believe "From river to the sea" means killing Jews is greater or less than 10%?

Expand full comment

I wonder how many people who believe that if Palestinians had full political rights it would effectively genocide Jews from Israel also believe that the "Great Replacement" is a baseless conspiracy theory.

Expand full comment

Except that Gaza and the west Bank aren't part of Israel. No matter what Hamas, nor crazy settlers say.

Expand full comment

Years back I ended up at a sketchy party with sketchy people who had all kinds of sketchy politics and this one guy starts telling me about how he is a "nationalist anarchist." He told me the success of his ideology would involve the various races and nations peacefully and anarchically separating into segregated anarchist communities living peacefully their separate anarchic lives.

I get the same feeling these days reading about the peaceful version of "river to the sea"

Expand full comment
Nov 13, 2023·edited Nov 13, 2023

"But it's just a right-wing canard to pretend that it always or usually does."

No it's not. If you want to defend free speech in all instances then I salute you for being consistent but don't try to gaslight people in the process about what the rhetoric in question actually means.

Expand full comment

Dammit, Freddie, if free speech really is that important (and I, and *many* of the Usual Suspects have said as much since 10/7, those with large platforms very publicly), why is it important to downplay “From The River To The Sea”?

Expand full comment
founding

It is not being downplayed. People are simply refusing to understand its meaning, historical and present, in context.

This is possibly a good strategy, as it tends to distract from the horrors being committed by the IDF/settlers.

How many babies died struggling for breath at Al-Shifa hospital because of the collective punishment the Palestinians in Gaza are suffering at the hands of Israel?

Expand full comment
founding

Yes, it is. Have you spent any actual time with Palestinians? They are not stupid, they understood reality.

Expand full comment

You're dead wrong.

Expand full comment

Free speech means that people who want to be just like Hitler are able to promote that view, as long as they don't make a specific, credible threat (and hew to whatever other wrinkles are in Brandenburg v Ohio).

It's our job to promote better, saner, more thoughtful arguments and defeat them in the marketplace of ideas. Not to use the force of the state to shut them up.

Expand full comment
Nov 13, 2023·edited Nov 13, 2023

Yes, that is in fact what it means. People who want to be Hitler should absolutely be protected from censorship and from silencing by the majority, because everyone should. You know what was immoral, even vile, 100 years ago? Interracial marriage. Gay marriage. If you're a person who says "I want these rights for myself and my side, but they should stop at X mark" then you're not a supervillain, you're a totally normal person even, but you don't actually know what the word 'rights' means.

Also the practical reason to promote robust free speech protections is that when the nazis get in, if there are mechanisms for silencing dissent, they use them. If they have to build those mechanisms, then the protectors of robust free speech will put up a fight.

Every body politic, like every body, has a time limit. Eventually our republic will sink down into a failed state or an imperium, no matter how high it rises. Some other place will be the center for trade and great ideas and success, or maybe nowhere will and life will be hard. None of this is a good reason to accelerate that collapse by undermining the principles that have made this era a golden age.

Expand full comment

No one who asks a rhetorical question followed by "look it up" is speaking sincerely.

You and the other insane Zionists already got what you wanted. The international community is standing by as a real genocide is committed against Palestinians. But just like every conservative victory it is hollow. It will never be enough. You will not stop until every Palestinian has been killed or exiled and you've already convinced yourself that they have it coming, all while crowing about imagined "genocidal rhetoric" from random college students or protesters.

I try not to post when I'm angry or feeling hatred, but it's been impossible lately. When Western media and elites unite in a brutally cold display of support for this evil, I cannot feel anything but hatred and disgust for those who equivocate or support these actions.

Expand full comment

You have abused the word 'genocide' here.

Expand full comment

No I haven't

Expand full comment

There are civilian casualties, yes. But the numbers and nature of those killings are not comparable to Cambodia or the Holocaust.

Expand full comment

Even if most Palestinian groups are actual Nazis (a ridiculous statement), actual Nazis have free speech rights too. This was famously demonstrated in the Skokie case but has also allowed people like Richard Spenser to speak on college campuses.

Expand full comment

"From the river to the sea" is a slippery slogan. Here is a good critique of it.

https://www.workersliberty.org/story/2023-11-07/against-bans-against-slippery-slogans

Expand full comment

Well, it doesn't really explain it does it? It just says it was used in 2002 at protests. The generally accepted meaning nowadays is that Jews need to be eradicated from the river(Jordan) to the Sea(Mediterranean). Whether it started out that way is inconsequential at this point. Banning slogans does no good. In fact, it's counterproductive. I'd rather people continue to use their preferred disparaging comments....that way you know who they are.

It is through their actions that you know Hamas is serious about eradicating Jews.

Hamas is NOT Palestine.

Let me say that again, Hamas is NOT Palestine. But Palestinians need to decide someday if they want to continue to identify with them. The US had a similar issue in the 1860s didn't we? A large number of Americans needed to decide if they wanted to be associated with slavery. Many fought and died to do away with it. Palestinians cannot continue to claim victimhood if they continue to NOT denounce groups like Hamas. You cannot support evil and then cry victim. At some point, they need to make a stand. As with ALL peoples, there is always a range of good and bad.

And remember, the area was under a cease fire when Israel was attacked. Preceding Oct 7th, Hamas and others had been constantly shelling Israel as well. The Israelis did NOT start this. They have a right to fight back.

History is full of displaced peoples. EVERYWHERE. Romans displaced people in the British Isles and France. American Indian tribes displaced other American Indian Tribes and then Europeans did the same to them. Europeans displaced a ton of people over time. History is FULL of colonization...it's kind of human nature.

Right now, city idiots are colonizing rural areas......it's the same thing. It's evolution.

Funny to me how people who profess to not really believe in property rights....like Marxists or Socialists...are SOOOO invested in the fact that somehow this land 'belongs' to the Palestinians....says who??? Who was there BEFORE the Palestinians?

"The land itself was under the control of various empires, such as the Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, and eventually the Islamic Caliphate and the Ottoman Empire"......should be bring all of those people back to occupy the land as well????

Expand full comment
Nov 13, 2023·edited Nov 13, 2023

>Thought you were talking about Israel until I hit “Islam” 🤣

I've had that experience frequently. Whenever someone makes a specific critique without specifying which side they're referring to, I'll assume one only to eventually find out they meant the other.

I've started to realize each needs the other as a target for hate. It's almost like these two groups are symbiotic.

Expand full comment

Anecdotally, I have also come across videos and statements of Israelis professing to ethnically cleanse Gazans (before and after this conflict). These videos may not be coming across your internet timeline.

Similarly, I have seen Palestinian protesters side by side with Jewish folk. One of the biggest cheers at the London rally was the mention of "our Jewish friends who protested at Grand Central".

I'm not sure you should be basing your arguments on protestor free speech on anecdotes.

Expand full comment
Nov 13, 2023Liked by Freddie deBoer

I don’t understand why people try to make this more complicated than it is. You believe in it or you don’t. If you do, you believe it applies to your worst enemies. If you don’t, don’t f*cking pretend you do.

Expand full comment
RemovedNov 13, 2023·edited Nov 13, 2023
Comment removed
Expand full comment

Where do you draw the line though? Somebody who advocates for BLM in a social media post (the "Ima cut you" girl) gets her internship offer revoked. Seems like a slippery slope to me.

Expand full comment
Comment removed
Expand full comment

For me I lean towards a cultural view where what you do on your free time is up to you, whether that's marching in a KKK rally or a peace march. And I think that American society was a lot closer to that a few decades ago compared to the modern day.

Expand full comment
Comment removed
Expand full comment

I think it's more that everyone has a printing press in their pocket and a column in a "newspaper" that everyone they know can look at.

People just didn't have the opportunity to broadcast their dumb opinions with the ease and reach they do now.

Expand full comment

This is a place where there probably has to be some flex and some accommodation for 'fit,' even if that can be used as an excuse.

Expand full comment

What bothers me is when it's not a public diatribe, and someone leaks a private chat or what have you.

I'm against tattle culture, personally. If you say something in pubic, you should be prepared to own and defend that sentiment, and that's good for society. But it's also important to have ways to work through ideas privately before you have to own them in front of the world.

Expand full comment
Comment removed
Expand full comment
Nov 13, 2023·edited Nov 14, 2023

If those emails were on company accounts, on company time, then I guess I have little reason to disagree. But if they were personal accounts, on personal time, my opinion would be different.

Expand full comment

Right. "Freedom of speech" exists to protect unpopular speech. If it didn't, what is even the point of such an ideal? Popular speech doesn't need protection.

Expand full comment
Removed (Banned)Nov 14, 2023
Comment removed
Expand full comment

Yep.

Expand full comment

The whole saga of the 1970's Nazi rally in Skokie, IL, up to and including being lampooned in the Blues Brothers, remains a pretty good Rorschach Test for this stuff IMO.

That's a triumph of the American experiment, if you are so inclined.

Expand full comment

The ACLU would never support it today.

Expand full comment

The ACLU turned into cowards after Charlottesville.

Expand full comment

ACLU is too extreme even for this Bernie Bro.

Expand full comment
Nov 13, 2023·edited Nov 13, 2023

Interesting you bring this up, that Blues Brothers scene has real staying power over the years.

What I thought quite remarkable about it though was not that the film was basically depicting a rendition of the Skokie protest, albeit humorously. But that the solution Jake and Elwood came up with was to drive over the small bridge and force all the Nazis to jump off into the stream below. I could be wrong, but I felt like the filmmakers (Landis?) were sort of offering up their own solution to a Nazi rally: end it by driving through them.

Of course it's a comedy, and barely serious, but I distinctly remember friends and family cheering out loud while watching that scene.

And why not, they were Nazis after all right? The immortal bad guys we all can agree on. But then I thought of that Charlottesville rally from 2017 and I thought to myself, "How would we have reacted to that if it was instead a counter-protestor who drove through the alt-right crowd? Would we still unanimously condemn it, or would some of us have cheered it?"

To be fair I'm sure the Blues Brothers' scene was not meant to be taken as a real solution to Nazi rallies, but rather as a hilarious shenanigan simply meant to make the audience laugh. But I would argue underneath that grand comedy is a bit of an uncomfortable truth: we all love to see those we all hate get publicly humiliated, or even hurt, from time to time. I think the actual Skokie rally was where we did the right thing, no question in my mind about that. But the Blues Brothers scene was where Jake and Elwood (us by proxy) did what we would really rather do...if there were no legal or moral consequences for it.

Expand full comment
Nov 13, 2023·edited Nov 13, 2023

Well the thing about Blues Brothers being in fact a work of fiction, or even better something like Inglourious Basterds getting even more down and dirty with cruelty against Nazis, is that there's a sort of "two can play at this free speech game" aspect to it. Fantasizing about horrific violence against people who fantasize about horrific violence.

And that's the American free speech thing, right? We are much better off having both Mein Kampf and Inglorious Basterds on the shelves of public libraries than we would be keeping all of it hidden for the benefit of public morals and public order. Sunshine is the best disinfectant.

Expand full comment

Oh I couldn't agree more, I just thought the lampooning was more revealing than a simple joke.

"Fantasizing about horrific violence against people who fantasize about horrific violence." -that made me lol. I'd imagine this is what makes us human. :]

Expand full comment

The people in Skokie weren't college students, and if they were, I doubt even in the halcyon days of free speech anyone would have argued that they should be granted tenure or allowed to chase Jews around campuses.

The anti-woke argument that you should be free to speak on contentious topics without having everything cast as hate speech to limit your participation in public institutions, does not make you a hypocrite when you say that actual hate speech should not be enshrined in public institutions. There are people who think the Civil Rights act should be repealed, but they are a minority of the people dubbed "free speech advocates."

If you are an employer with a diverse workforce, your legal team will tell you that hiring an a vocal racist is going to get you sued. If you have an employee saying, "praise our martyrs, palestine is arab" in your slack chat, you are going to have a problem if you also employ any Jews.

For years, the left tried to focus the full power of the civil rights administrative apparatus on their enemies by reframing their political opinions as matters of harm and civil rights. DEI offices now exist in major corporations to treat microaggressions as firing offences based on nothing more than the expediants of ideology. Now that the left have openly embraced hate in many cases, openly embraced macroaggresion, they can't understand why people are saying the system should be focused on them because they never really had any belief in the system to begin with and thought it was just there for their own use. This whole thing is leftists telling on themselves. They can't believe that opposition to their hate speech is anything but hypocrisy because they were always hypocrites in the first place, it was always just a tactic to gain power. Now that institutions that they thought they controlled (though it's still to be seen if anything will actually happen) and had used to dole out privileges based on ideological alignment are being forced to return to their universalist role, they can't process it as anything but a betrayal.

This whole saga honestly validates the supposedly hypocritical, anti-woke, free speech advocates. For years they had claimed that the new moral standards were nakedly partisan and would render basic concepts like hate speech mutually unintelligible, and that's what has happened.

In the case of moderate leftists who are sympathetic to Palestinian causes the perception of silencing stems from two things. First, there are people who do want to silence them and are hypocrites. But at its core, this whole accusation of hypocrisy stems from the ignorance, both willing and through omission, of just how debased the rhetoric of one side has become. And the fact that it became so debased so quickly is a direct result of them having removed the universalist and humanist safeguards that liberalism had attempted to erect in the first place. And a lot of people who found themselves surrounded by gleeful antisemites are now unable to extricate themselves or acknowledge the reality of what just happened (We've seen this in the past).

Expand full comment

The hypocrisy goes both ways, and you're exhibiting it.

"Ah but THIS speech is just too far".

On the one hand, there is a zone of absolute content neutrality per the First Amendment where nothing is too far, including a Nazi rally in a heavily Jewish suburb where at the time many Holocaust survivors lived. A public university shutting down pro-Palestine student groups certainly falls into that bucket. Despicable hatred has permanent protected access to the public square, such is the American experiment.

And outside of the First Amendment Zone of absolute no-exceptions content neutrality, there is argument at the margins of what belongs in decent private discourse and how to enforce those limits. You don't have to think "this is what decolonization looks like" should be just blithely tolerated and neither does Bari Weiss. But neither you nor Bari Weiss gets to wear your "being challenged by uncomfortable ideas is what higher education is for" hat while cheerleading the immolation of the future professional lives of a bunch of public-spirited 21 year olds. The SJW snowflakes are hypocrites just throwing whatever rhetorical cudgel they can grab a hold of at their opponents and so are you.

Have the balls to argue against the principle of free expression. Europeans would and do.

Expand full comment
Nov 16, 2023·edited Nov 16, 2023

"Ah but THIS speech is just too far".

Yes, exactly. "Gas the Jews" is too far. You seem to think that having any standards means you can't criticise someone for having bad standards, which is, well it's just stupid. Me and Bari Weiss still get to wear our "being challenged by uncomfortable ideas" badge because neither of us have crossed the red line of arguing that certain people can be ethically murdered due to their race.

Colleges are not public like a park, they are public as in public money. As in there are conditions. Therefor they need to follow Title VI of the civil rights act. If a professor is targeting Jews in his class, if a protest is engaging in racially prejudiced language on campus, if they are celebrating dangerous and racist groups, then the schools have a legal duty to shut those things down, just like they did across colleges in the 1960s when we decided that actually racism is, in fact, something that goes too far. These same equal protection clauses apply to employers as well. The line has been enshrined in law since 1964. I didn't make it.

The fact that you can't tell the difference between actual hate speech, speaks only to your moral failing and the utter poverty of whatever passes as your first principles, not to my supposed hypocrisy.

Expand full comment
Nov 16, 2023·edited Nov 16, 2023

Well, see, in two posts you've bidded downwards from "praise our martyrs, Palestine is Arab" to "Gas the Jews".

In both First Amendment terms and moral terms those are very different!

(And both are also different than "from the river to the sea", incidentally)

Trying to collapse those distinctions into a unitary "with us or against us" notion of unacceptable expression which is all equally to be interpreted as literal violence is PRECISELY the "woke" project.

Now please, tell me more about how "no, actually, your speech denies my right to exist and makes my body unsafe in this space"

Expand full comment

It might be that the actions here are the focus, rather than the words.

Expand full comment

I think the problem here is we need to look at the spirit of '64, not '91. The First Amendment had a pretty big asterix stuck next to it with the civil rights act. You are allowed to discriminate against actual racism if. you are an employer. Indeed, if you don't want to get sued you are actively required to discriminate against actual racism. And anti-semitism, despite the arguments of lefties, is still actual racism.

There is a debate whether minimizing the ethno-terrorist violence on Oct. 7 was actually racist, or if the outburst of people who seem to be on the side of not just Palestinian Liberation in general, but of Hamas in particular is also racist, but it's not a debate I really care to have in this space. I'll suffice it to say that the attempts to frame this as a "both sides" issue really overlooks a lot of bad actors.

Expand full comment

Have you considered that Anti-Semitism and Semitism are merely opposite side of the racist coin? The cry of Anti-Semitism being merely a tribalist rallying cry to 'gather the tribe' to confront an ancient enemy of our tribe. The cry of Anti-Semitism is an appeal to authority, and appeal 'look at me, I'm the favored son Isaac' hiss at that disfavored son Ishmael and all his unclean followers.

If I were under attack, and cried out 'Anti-Christian behavior' would anyone come to my rescue? Good luck whitey. Thus, instead of a society where all people might enjoy equality of protection; some tribes are special. Maybe this is the real problem.

Expand full comment

The fact that this particular ism is probably the second-oldest ism (after sexism), and it continues to persist, is the real problem.

Expand full comment

I don't think they should ban their protests, but deport them.

Expand full comment

If you deport people for doing something, you have banned that thing.

Expand full comment

No, they can protest at home.

The problem is they are violent and threaten residents.

Expand full comment

What about the ones who have lived in the UK/US/Germany their entire lives and are citizens?

Expand full comment

No deportation of any citizen.

Expand full comment
Nov 13, 2023·edited Nov 13, 2023

As I understand it the Palestinians, for all intents and purposes, lost the Arab Israeli war and lost their territory as a result. Similar in many was to Mexico losing the Mexican American war and losing territory as a result. Well, in both cases, they lost it fair and square because they didn’t have their shit together and it’s going to stay lost so, like the Mexicans, they need to get used to it.

I mean if Mexico wants to send troops across the border to kidnap and murder Americans as part of some ill conceived plan to get California back they shouldn’t be surprised when we’re carpet bombing Mexico City. But we just want our land back! Well, you’re not getting it and the bombing will continue until you get that thought through your head.

Expand full comment
author

you think right by conquest is a doctrine that... helps Israel's claims? The pro-Israel argument is literally the opposite.

Expand full comment
Nov 13, 2023Liked by Freddie deBoer

I've seen pro-Israel commenters make the argument both ways, depending on what's convenient at the moment. Sometimes conquest is illegitimate and the Jewish people have an ancestral right to this particular place, sometimes it's legitimate and the Israeli state has rightfully conquered that same place.

The conclusion is fixed, the arguments are not.

Expand full comment
Removed (Banned)Nov 14, 2023
Comment removed
Expand full comment

If we're setting aside morality and just talking about cold realities, I think we have to reckon with the fact that this seems likely to end in Israel / Palestine being reduced to a nuclear wasteland.

Israel already has the bomb. Its enemies are likely to get it sooner or later. And nobody powerful seems remotely interested in de-escalation, so...

Expand full comment
Removed (Banned)Nov 14, 2023
Comment removed
Expand full comment

Korea has been lucky so far. And maybe Israel will be lucky as well. But I wouldn't put money on it. And if I lived in Israel, I'd move somewhere safer.

Expand full comment

Israel Palestine - your new house and the Munsee Indians - potato potatoe.

Expand full comment
author

You understand that the whole argument for Zionism is that it's the ancestral home of Israel, but they lost it by conquest to the Romans and were given it back by the UK, right? That's not rule by conquest, and if rule by conquest is what we're going for, if someone else conquers modern Israel they will have just as much right to it as the Israelis do. I don't think that's a wise stance for supporters of Israel to take.

Expand full comment

"That's not rule by conquest, and if rule by conquest is what we're going for, if someone else conquers modern Israel they will have just as much right to it as the Israelis do. I don't think that's a wise stance for supporters of Israel to take."

Wow, you have a lot of confidence that the world would have done something if Israel had lost one of the wars against the Arab nations.

Expand full comment
Nov 13, 2023·edited Nov 13, 2023

I call it like I see it. The Munsee Indians don’t have a right to take over your home, Mexico doesn’t have a right to take back California and the Palestinians should learn to deal with life as it is.

They are weak and they lost and life isn’t fair.

Expand full comment
author

If Arabs invade and take over Israel, will you say the same about them? Will the have the same right of conquest?

Expand full comment

They can’t so it’s a moot point. That’s the whole argument.

Expand full comment

Ukraine isn't getting Crimea back unless they can take it themselves.

Expand full comment

But they're still there, living in the country much the way Africans were in South Africa under apartheid. Should they be forcibly expelled to neighboring countries?

Expand full comment

I doubt this will have much of an effect, but do you realize your argument applies to any atrocities committed by Hamas? As in, on Oct. 7, when they were killing civilians, they were justified because, in that moment, they were the stronger party? I mean, I don't think you really believe this, but it's where your "logic" leads.

Expand full comment

It doesn’t have anything to do with what is right or wrong or how we think things “should” be. It’s how things are.

Ukraine successfully held off a Russian invasion so they get to stay their own country. Hamas didn’t so they don’t. That’s how the world works.

Expand full comment

And whether it's wise or not, it CERTAINLY invites, practically begs, the interpretation that is being censored in the stories above.

Expand full comment
Nov 13, 2023·edited Nov 13, 2023

The argument was self determination until the Arabs tried to eliminate Israel multiple times. They're never going to go back to the pre-1967 borders because no one trusts the Arabs to behave properly when they're even closer to the major Israeli population centers.

Expand full comment

Depends entirely on who starts the war.

Expand full comment

This logic is also applied to Native Americans, and I just don't buy it, ethically. Sure, they lost a war (or ongoing battles and treaties and a number of other atrocities), but do we really want to continue living in a world where might equals right? Still? Can't we collective decide to move beyond that yet?

Expand full comment

You can just say Blood & Soil next time to cut down on word count.

Expand full comment

That’s the reality of how the world works, isn’t it?

Expand full comment

So the folks living in the bantustans of apartheid South Africa should have gotten used to it, because that's how the world works?

Expand full comment

You're more likely to convince this one with an argument like:

"So the Boers being forced off their land should get used to it, because that's how the world works?"

Expand full comment

Well, he/she/whatever seems to be all about Might Is Right.

But only sometimes.

Expand full comment
Nov 13, 2023·edited Nov 13, 2023

I find "might makes right people" are real laissez-faire about everything until the first time someone powerful enough to kick their ass comes along, then all a sudden they git real misty eyed about doctrines of natural rights.

Expand full comment

Absent a world government that can enforce some sort of sovereign entity property rights - it doesn’t matter what we think. It is what it is.

Expand full comment

Right, except that ignores all the times in history when people and nations decided to set aside their advantages and their very deeply held resentments and try other solutions like toleration, reconciliation, or reconstruction. And that wasn't because they were super kum-bay-yah, it was because they were so deeply familiar with the consequences of violence that they got tired of it, which is a perfectly rational response to unending violence.

Expand full comment

Yeah I mean, this whole "that's just the way the world works" has a real "facts don't care about your feelings" vibe; it's just a slogan, empty of morality, intelligence, or even a loose grasp of world history. If you want to say the history of human relations is that of endless war, then you also have to say it's one of endless treaties, diplomacy, strategic alliances, various approaches to codified or informal justice, legalism, long periods of relative peace, etc. Not to mention the entire postwar era is defined, in word and often in practice, by an explicit rejection of any rights conferred by conquest.

Expand full comment

We have had relatively stable national borders for decades...not centuries, but decades. Plenty of civil wars and ethnic clashes, but not the territorial expansion that was the norm before. I hate to see us go back to that bygone era and return to conquerors and warlords. It might be fun in video games and movies, but it will truly suck in real life.

Expand full comment

You can hardly apply that framework of "we won the war fair and square" to answer questions where human suffering is involved to this extent. The Mexican American war analogy is hardly relevant either given the lack of parallels between the two. We owe it to ourselves and the people dying over there to not think so simplistically.

Expand full comment

Why? Their government sent fighters across the border and they are now dealing with the consequences.

You don’t step on Superman’s cape, you don’t spit into the wind, you don’t pull the mask off the ol’ long ranger and you don’t send fighters to murder and kidnap the the citizens of a country that has the power to totally destroy you. If you do? That’s on you.

Expand full comment

What is this "government" of which you speak? And what "border"? Gaza, like the West Bank, has been under Israeli control since 1967. No one goes in, no one goes out, goods don't go in, goods don't go out, without Israeli permission. The Palestinian people living there have no rights. Gaza in particular was/is a concentration camp, and has been openly described as such by Israeli leaders. What we saw on October 7th was a breakout from that concentration camp, a prison break. Such breaks tend to be violent (see slave revolts in the US for comparison.) The fighters from Gaza attacked several of the Israeli military bases that enforce the imprisonment of Gazans. They also sought to take hostages - complain about this all you want, but Israel holds (not counting the 2.2 million Gazans!) thousands of Palestinian prisoners, including women and children. The hostages were to be used to bargain for freedom for those prisoners, and to end the crushing imprisonment of Gaza. Israeli leadership doesn't give a shit about the lives of the Israelis held hostage - that is obvious from their actions, starting on October 7th, when Israeli military forces were ordered to blast houses in the captured kibbutz, and even to bomb an Israeli military base. You are engaging in classic DARVO, blaming the victim for responding to the decades-long death, destruction and imprisonment you have inflicted. I have one question for you, the most fundamental question: are the Palestinians untermenschen, or not?

Expand full comment

Gaza could be Monaco if they had their shit together. But they don’t and haven’t for a long time.

Expand full comment

You are utterly delusional, if not consciously spreading Isreali hasbara talking points. Gaza has been a concentration camp for at least 16 years. Israel controlled all access, the air space, and the ocean. The economy of Gaza has long been crushed as a result: how can farmers get their produce to markets, when Israel can - and has - deliberately closed the exits, causing everything to rot? Israel fired upon Palestinian fishermen who dared to venture more than a kilometer or two off shore, which they need to do since water closer to shore is polluted, since Israel destroyed the sewage and water treatement plants. Every couple of years Israel "mows the lawn" (translation from Nazi-speak: bombs the enclave, killing hundreds of children, women, and men.) Yeah, sounds just like Monaco. All that was before the last month, when Israel moved to genocide, the complete destruction of Palestinian society in Gaza - along with blatant ethnic cleansing in both Gaza and the West Bank. Wake the fuck up, and stop lying.

Expand full comment
Removed (Banned)Nov 14, 2023
Comment removed
Expand full comment

So you're for Might Is Right, then.

Funny how that doesn't apply to The Holocaust.

Expand full comment

Some Israelis are so far-gone that they do think it applies to the Holocaust.

In 2019, Giora Radler, a Rabbi and instructor at a military prep academy, was recorded saying the following:

[Hitler] is the most righteous person. Of course he is right in every word he utters. In his ideology he is right. There is a male world which fights, which deals with honor and the brotherhood of soldiers. And there is the soft, ethical feminine world [which speaks of] ‘turning the other cheek’. ‘And we [Nazis] believe that the Jews carry on this heritage, trying, in our words, to spoil the whole of humanity, and that’s why they are the real enemy.’ Now, he [Hitler] is 100% correct, aside from the fact that he was on the wrong side.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/embracing-racism-rabbis-at-pre-army-yeshiva-laud-hitler-urge-enslaving-arabs/

https://mondoweiss.net/2019/04/israeli-military-praising/

Basically, according to Radler, Hitler's general worldview regarding "might makes right" and irreconcilable conflict between races was correct, his only mistake was being against the Jews.

Expand full comment

Detestable as that is (thanks for bringing it up), at least it is more honest than the usual double standards.

Expand full comment

TL:DR "Freedom of Speech" is very important. Except when sacred cows are gored.

Germany and other EU countries also have a history of silencing dissent from the approved narratives with regard to Russia and Ukraine.

Expand full comment

I lean more toward Israel than Palestine in this wretched conflict, but that doesn't matter. It's reaching the point where I would support someone for president - literally anyone - who was passionately devoted to free speech over any other issue, foreign or domestic, free speech, period. Don't see anyone like that on the horizon, though.

Expand full comment

Is that because you believe free speech is an unalloyed and unmatched good, or because you think it's been neglected and needs shoring up even if there are equally or more important goods?

Expand full comment

The second, I think. I don't know that there are any unalloyed goods in this fallen world.

Expand full comment

So you would or would not support the following platform:

As President, I will impose a 99% tax on all individuals and corporations with a net worth greater than $1 billion (to be determined by a federal audit). Individuals who refuse to pay this tax will be imprisoned; corporations which refuse to pay this tax will be taken into receivership. Individuals who leave the country to avoid this tax will be stripped of the rights and privileges of U.S. citizenship and their assets seized by the state. Corporations which seek to evade this tax by incorporating in a foreign country will be banned from trading in American markets and all assets currently housed in U.S. institutions will be seized by the state. If my actions are challenged in the judicial branch, I will use subtle but unmistakable threats of force to compel judges to rule in my favor.

I will suspend all military and other aid to Israel. Indeed, I will instead provide substantive aid packages to the Palestinian Authority.

I will not, however, at any point as part of one of the above actions violate the First Amendment rights of any citizens of the United States, as those rights have been understood by the Supreme Court of the United States at the time of my election.

(Assume that this individual has a huge popular base and the potential to, if not win, act as a spoiler in the general election—although it's possible they could win. Say, the level of popularity Trump would have if he ran as a third-party candidate.)

Expand full comment

I claim the Sacred Right of Internet Hyperbole to say no, I wouldn't, cause that ain't what I meant.

Expand full comment

"It's reaching the point where I would support someone for president - literally anyone - who was passionately devoted to free speech over any other issue, foreign or domestic, free speech, period."

So, how many more Palestine protests will have to be suppressed before you decide it's time for President Hammond?

Expand full comment

"Reaching" versus "reached".

Expand full comment

Don't threaten me with a good time!

Expand full comment

Believe you me, I'd vote for him in a second.

Expand full comment
Nov 13, 2023·edited Nov 13, 2023

In fairness, deeply un-American speech policies in Europe go beyond this issue.

Which is to say, *actual*, constitutional free speech in America is something very much worth defending.

All the more reason to not let these discussions devolve into "it should be illegal for someone to call me a corncob on Twitter".

Expand full comment
founding

It’s wild to hear “heterodox” British people discuss free speech. They’re a lot more comfortable with banning speech than you’d expect, presumably because they don’t have US amendment and norm.

Expand full comment

You keep whipping this dead horse, but I just don't think firing people for debating whether puberty blockers were as safe as we were told is on the same level as firing people for debating whether it's ok to kill Jews.

The real hypocrisy here is that the "punch Nazis" crowd is now sharing talking points with actual neo-nazis. One side has clearly fallen farther than the other. And this is ignoring that Nazi included anyone right of AOC.

But to your point, I'll say the same thing I've been forced to say during the last 10 years of increasing authoritarian speech norm: This far, and no further. But I think we both know which side it is that's going to move the line again.

Expand full comment
author

"debating whether it's ok to kill Jews."

1. No one is actually doing this.

2. The First Amendment says we have the right to do this so long as we are not issuing a direct threat. It's not nice, but that's what freedom is. That's the whole point.

3. "the "punch Nazis" crowd is now sharing talking points with actual neo-nazis." Neo-Nazis love Israeli. They see it as a bulwark against the brown hordes. Seriously, Stormfront constantly celebrates Zionism. You need to update your rhetoric.

Expand full comment

With regard to 1:

It's an exaggerated statement, but there certainly have been people justifying the October 7th attack as legitimate armed resistance against Israel, which I imagine is what they meant to refer to.

Expand full comment

Yes, yes, yes, I think we've all heard the "no one is actually doing this" line about left-radicalism a few times now.

Expand full comment

Ouch.

Expand full comment

One side has had actual Nazis fighting for them, and it wasn't the Israelis.

Expand full comment

"Resistance is always justified."

"Glory to the Martyrs."

"Intifadah, Revolution, there is only one solution."

You're right. This isn't debating if it's ok to kill Jews. These slogans--all over many marches that have happened around the world--have decided that it is affirmatively good to kill Jews.

To be clear, I don't think anyone should be arrested for saying these things. But it's just not clear to me that "freedom of speech" means that nothing you say can be weighed in any hiring decision for any position. There's a lot of nuance here, but "it's justified to bake a baby in an oven" might be a reason to question someone's ability to be effective in certain jobs.

Expand full comment

There's a lot of nuance here, but "it's justified to bake a baby in an oven" might be a reason to question someone's ability to be effective in certain jobs.

There is NO nuance. Such a person is not someone I wan to be around, nor would my clients or co-workers. Even if was mopping floors, working the fryer, making tacos, washing dishes, such a person a a danger to have in your workplace. They may not physically assault someone, but they will open their mouths and spew their hate at some point, and no one around them deserves such abuse.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

These Substacks (or at least the ones I have read) are replete with posts on cancel culture and examples of people losing jobs or having offers revokes for all manner of speech that is "much less inflammatory." I suspect you've read a few of these posts yourself, perhaps made some comments. My point being that there is no shortage of discussion over the rights and wrongs of cancel culture, and which "much less inflammatory" speech is going to be punished by whom.

I have no problem with someone who mumbled too loudly after a few drinks that "men can't get pregnant" or "mis-gendered" some guy in a dress at the 2016 office holiday party. But, I personally draw the line at anyone who openly cheers for Hamas. I don't want those people around me.

Expand full comment

I was trying to phrase it as gently as possible to highlight the absurdity of Freddie's claim (that believing in free speech and acknowledging that some speech will have some consequences are entirely compatible).

But I think the nuance there is that if people are entirely unemployable, then my tax dollars end up paying for them to exist, and I don't think that's a great state of affairs either. If they can have a job where their desire to see 7 million Jews wiped off the face of the earth is immaterial to their work, and they can avoid openly calling for murder in the workplace, I think that's the best we can hope for in a free, pluralistic society.

Expand full comment

"but I think the nuance there is that if people are entirely unemployable, then my tax dollars end up paying for them to exist, and I don't think that's a great state of affairs either"

People lose their jobs and become unemployable due to something they said or did or were merely accused of, that is not related to their jobs . Ever heard of "#metoo"? (just for an example). What about the kid who lost his fast food job because someone recognized him at the Charlottesville shit show? If you can lose a job or have an offer revoked because you posted 14 years ago on Facebook that women don't have penises, then I'm OK with you losing your high paying snobby law firm offer because you openly cheer for people who just put babies in ovens and set to "bake" and tied kids to their parents and burned them all alive. Such a hate filled person has absolutely no business walking the hallways of any law firm I would work at or, as importantly, hire to represent my company and charge me a shit ton of $$ for the privilege.

Sorry about your tax dollars.

Expand full comment

I think #metoo went too far, and some people lost their jobs who shouldn't have.

I did not hear about the fast food/Charlottesville kid, but I don't think he should have lost his job.

I don't think people should lose their job for decades-old, basically inoffensive social media posts.

Like you, I am totally fine with someone who cheers for the murder of Jews losing their job at a high paying law firm. That was the point of my first post. It is substantively different than the above cases.

But I don't think that person should be entirely unemployable. As I said above, if they can get a job where their hateful opinions don't matter and they learn to keep those opinions to themselves, I think that's better than any other alternative.

Expand full comment

By this silly logic a huge swathe of USA jews would lose their jobs. There has been no shortage of anti palestinian racism expressed on linkedin alone that would get an arab fired if he said it about jews.

Pretending this massive disparity isn't their is just flat out insincere lying.

Expand full comment

1. Who counts as no one? There were the "gas the jews" chants in Sydney. A lot of "this is what decolonization looks like" posts during and immediately after Oct 7th. Or chanting about Khayber jewish expulsion. https://twitter.com/hurryupharry/status/1718287119452663969 It doesn't de-legitimatize all pro-palesitian claims or take away from Israeli extremists. But "literally no one" feels a bit like the literally no one is being cancelled argument.

2. I agree completely. I think this has been a great example for left of center folks that European speech laws aren't great.

3. The punch Nazis crowd are the same crowds at pro Palesitian protests. Especially here in Portland. That crowd's loudest advocates at least in my experience has been lefties into "direct action". Also yeah I think that neo-nazis are at the very least split over a jewish state. https://www.sfchronicle.com/us-world/article/nazi-antisemitism-israel-hamas-18476691.php, https://www.vice.com/en/article/k7zx5a/neo-nazis-hijack-pro-palestine-protest-mike-enoch. Or at least cynically down to inflame the conflict either way cuz it kills more of two types of people they hate.

Expand full comment

Don't worry, it's a just a few college students going through a phase, it's not going to spread or anything.

Expand full comment

Iswydt

Expand full comment

“Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?”

There are ongoing protests worldwide calling for the extermination of Israel and Jews, and many of the comments here include clear examples of popular slogans promoting martyrdom and indiscriminate violence.

Expand full comment

And not just talk, but actually documented incidents of violence against Jews, who are neither abstract nor far away but nearby and in imminent danger as a result of this speech. Precisely why it’s not protected under 1A.

Expand full comment

"You believe in [free speech rights] all the time, or you don’t believe in it at all."

This. Over and over again, this.

Thank you.

Expand full comment

No....nowhere in there did I say they COULDN'T say it.

I said we had better LISTEN to what they are saying because they are SERIOUS.

By all means, let the loonies talk.....but there is actual intent behind their talk.

For example....the recent mass shooter in Maine professed that he was going to do a mass shooting before he did.....and NOBODY did anything.

If people come out and SAY they are going to commit acts of violence, believe them.

If they are dumb enough to say it out loud, then do something.

Words are not violence....but they can be a warning and when particularly vile, should be paid attention to.

Expand full comment

Actually, vis a vis murderer in Maine, lots of people tried to do something about it, and were unsuccessful.

Expand full comment

Generally the concept of free speech does not extent to blatant calls for violence. Go to any pro-Palestinian protest and you’ll hear exactly that - “glory to the martyrs” and “intifada now” are explicit calls for violence that promote terrorism and jihad.

Expand full comment
Nov 13, 2023·edited Nov 13, 2023

"Advocacy of force or criminal activity does not receive First Amendment protections if (1) the advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and (2) is likely to incite or produce such action."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action

A peaceful political rally an ocean away from the conflict doesn't pass either prong of the Brandenberg test, hateful though the rhetoric may be.

Even January 6th, way WAY more direct and immediate incitement, is a shaky case.

Expand full comment

Yeah because all Jews live in Israel and never experience violence elsewhere 🙄

Expand full comment

Well there are certainly things you could say which would not be afforded First Amendment protection, but "from the river to the sea" ain't one of them.

Expand full comment

I would agree “From the river to the sea” is vague enough to warrant 1A protection, but it’s obviously also a slogan that endorses ethnic cleansing and genocide.

If that’s all people are saying at these protests, I’d agree they should not be stopped. But it rarely stops at such vague language.

Expand full comment
Nov 13, 2023·edited Nov 13, 2023

"it's obviously also a slogan that endorses ethnic cleansing and genocide"

The core reality of Israel/Palestine as a discourse matter, as opposed to a military matter, is that for both sides it goes absolutely without saying that it is inherent in every statement of their opposing side that they are firmly and unshakably committed to total ethnic cleansing of the entire Land of Israel.

There are people on both sides very much committed to that. There are also many (almost certainly more) for whom the idea of "winning" in that way would horrify them. Probably most of all people just support their side without thinking closely about it at all.

It's tough stuff. Third rails don't have some easy solution sitting in plain sight.

The observation that one party had the capacity to carry out ethnic cleansing in 1948 and the other party has that capacity now is very relevant to my own feelings, but all the better to keep the lines open for discourse about it.

Expand full comment

It is obvious that someone saying "Let's go and attack this synagogue in Brooklyn in the name of Allah" is committing an illegal act per the Brandenberg doctrine and would be arrested for doing so.

Expand full comment

Agreed that the first amendment shields these protestors from criminal prosecution (although Europe doesn’t have such strong free speech laws), but this rhetoric falls squarely outside the Overton window of reasonable opinions and should be condemned by civilized society.

People like Rashida Tlaib are hateful racists that should be treated like KKK supporters and Nazi sympathizers. It’s disingenuous for Freddie to argue that people are being canceled for peaceful advocacy of Palestinian self determination, when protestors worldwide are proudly declaring their hatred of Jews and desire to murder them.

Expand full comment

Gonna need a citation on Rashida Tlaib being a “hateful racist”

Expand full comment

Rashida Tlaib has used and defended the “from the river to the sea” chant and continues to promote the lie that Israel bombed the Al-Ahli hospital in Gaza (directly contradicting US intelligence and video evidence).

She directly calls for the extermination of Jews and promotes blood libel that foments hatred and rage among her supporters towards a specific group.

Expand full comment

I personally don’t think “from the river to the sea” is a great slogan (I find it vague and unrealistic) but to claim it is antisemitic is just factually inaccurate. If that’s the reason for your claim that she is calling for the extermination of Jews, we don’t really share enough priors to warrant further discussion. This Jew is proud to support Rep. Tlaib.

Expand full comment

The slogan is vague in the same way that the confederate flag is vague.

I suppose you could believe that Hamas and Iran use this phrase to advocate for a pluralistic society where Palestinians and Israelis live in harmony, but that is obviously not the case. The vast majority of government institutions in the West, from the White House to Downing Street, have rightfully condemned the slogan.

Expand full comment

What do you think happens to the Jews when Hamas controls from the river to the sea?

Expand full comment

only a colonized mind will carelessly toss out phrases such as "terrorism" and "jihad". Your word choice belies the extent to which your thinking is controlled by the ideology of Western Imperialists.

Expand full comment
Nov 13, 2023·edited Nov 13, 2023

Is this satire?

Expand full comment