I think the far more substantive argument would be to point out the actual measures government took under Biden to suppress free speech on platforms like Twitter and FB.
If you want to try to hijack the discussion with politically motivated campaign slogans I am going to respond.
You do know that there's a giant censorship case by Biden administration in front of SCOTUS? Or not.... Like you yourself freely admit. Trump hate is a hell of a drug.
If you think that one person saying something carries more weight that entire government apparatus doing something, then that's what you think. And the idea that somebody from the Left complaining about people being persecuted for their political beliefs is funny. Because the term MAGA Republican was never used in that context by Joe Biden himself. Repeatedly.
You are being put in a bad spot by people who run Democrats. You are forced to defend and worship a throughly corrupt wanna be autocrat in Biden.
P.S. Once you show me evidence of Donald Trump or his children do money laundering to hide sources of CCP cash, I will gladly admit that he is as corrupt as Biden.
Sigh.... Would you consider forcing people of all social media for posting the truth Joe Biden finds inconvenient following whatever definition of "rooted out" you want? Answer that question and the answer to your question will become obvious. But your inability to distinguish between one person out of power saying and the entire federal government doing is... educational. Gotta get that hit of Trump hate I suppose.
That case was brought to SCOTUS by the Biden administration itself, to challenge a lower court ruling that blocked it from urging social media companies to take down content it called dangerous. By agreeing to take up the case SCOTUS also cancelled the lower court's action for now. And it appears you have completely bought into the selective and hardly error-free reporting of Weiss, Taibbi et al. Meanwhile Trump's going to be the GOP nominee and saying right out loud that he plans to 'root out' elements of the political left (as well as 'fascists', making him I dunno, antifa?) whom he refers to as 'vermin' living 'within the confines of our country' . You have to be really dense or totally in doublethink mode to not hear very dark echoes of the past there.
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.
Exceptions for private corporations that run communication and utility platforms that dominate. And you must bake that wedding cake despite your beliefs.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
"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
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.
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.
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.
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....'
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.
"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.
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.
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"
"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.
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”?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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????
>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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is remarkably off topic.
What does that have to do with Trump versus Biden?
You know Biden's getting sued right now in federal court by writers who were censored over Covid?
I think the far more substantive argument would be to point out the actual measures government took under Biden to suppress free speech on platforms like Twitter and FB.
If you want to try to hijack the discussion with politically motivated campaign slogans I am going to respond.
Which candidate's administration coerced social media companies into silencing dissent over controversial topics? Giant Douche, or Turd Sandwich?
You do know that there's a giant censorship case by Biden administration in front of SCOTUS? Or not.... Like you yourself freely admit. Trump hate is a hell of a drug.
If you think that one person saying something carries more weight that entire government apparatus doing something, then that's what you think. And the idea that somebody from the Left complaining about people being persecuted for their political beliefs is funny. Because the term MAGA Republican was never used in that context by Joe Biden himself. Repeatedly.
You are being put in a bad spot by people who run Democrats. You are forced to defend and worship a throughly corrupt wanna be autocrat in Biden.
P.S. Once you show me evidence of Donald Trump or his children do money laundering to hide sources of CCP cash, I will gladly admit that he is as corrupt as Biden.
Sigh.... Would you consider forcing people of all social media for posting the truth Joe Biden finds inconvenient following whatever definition of "rooted out" you want? Answer that question and the answer to your question will become obvious. But your inability to distinguish between one person out of power saying and the entire federal government doing is... educational. Gotta get that hit of Trump hate I suppose.
That case was brought to SCOTUS by the Biden administration itself, to challenge a lower court ruling that blocked it from urging social media companies to take down content it called dangerous. By agreeing to take up the case SCOTUS also cancelled the lower court's action for now. And it appears you have completely bought into the selective and hardly error-free reporting of Weiss, Taibbi et al. Meanwhile Trump's going to be the GOP nominee and saying right out loud that he plans to 'root out' elements of the political left (as well as 'fascists', making him I dunno, antifa?) whom he refers to as 'vermin' living 'within the confines of our country' . You have to be really dense or totally in doublethink mode to not hear very dark echoes of the past there.
😏
Pretty ballsy of you to argue Palestinians are human beings ENTITLED to equal rights, frankly quite shocking to hear.
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.
Sarcasm
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.
The justification of slaughtering a group of people (a component of genocide) is de-facto dehumanization.
You haven't heard some of the radical Zionists.
“ 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.
Exceptions for private corporations that run communication and utility platforms that dominate. And you must bake that wedding cake despite your beliefs.
Well, which is it?
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.
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.
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.
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.
What free expression rights do I have in private settings? I wasn’t aware that I had any or any expectation of having any.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The government has already proven there’s no “private setting” if you get any funding in any form from the Fed’s.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
I believe she also sees herself as a free speech absolutist. Reconciling the two would be something to talk about.
I think what's being lost here is the difference btwn speaking and ACTIONS.
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.
They could have hidden in the attic. \s
Ouch! That’ll leave a mark.
That's my point. Exactly.
IIRC, Bari Weiss was all in favor of cancel culture, as long as it was used on people she didn't approve of.
Seems at least not in this case: https://www.thefp.com/p/even-antisemites-deserve-free-speech
I don't see a reference to Bari Weiss.
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.
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.
To be fair to Weiss is the issue free speech or is it violence (of the actual physical, sometimes people die variety)?
My rules preferred over your rules.
Your rules fairly applied vastly preferred over your rules applied willy-nilly.
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.
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!
"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
I agree those extremists exist, but they are not staging protests in the west in any numbers, nor do they have elite backing.
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.
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.
John Hagee spoke at yesterday’s pro-Israel rally in DC and nobody opposed it. Seriously?
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.
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....'
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.
Motte and Bailey + Strawman.
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.
"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.
So you think the % of Muslims who believe "From river to the sea" means killing Jews is greater or less than 10%?
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.
Except that Gaza and the west Bank aren't part of Israel. No matter what Hamas, nor crazy settlers say.
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"
"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.
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”?
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?
Yes, it is. Have you spent any actual time with Palestinians? They are not stupid, they understood reality.
You're dead wrong.
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.
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.
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.
You have abused the word 'genocide' here.
No I haven't
There are civilian casualties, yes. But the numbers and nature of those killings are not comparable to Cambodia or the Holocaust.
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.
"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
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????
>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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.