In the wake of the brutal Hamas massacre, there have been calls to silence grotesque speech against our community. It’s understandable. But it’s wrong.
A few comments on your thoughtful article. First, as you know, the First Amendment does not apply to private universities or companies. So we are free to debate its applicability to these institutions. Second, while one can take a position that a college should allow unrestricted free speech however offensive it may be, the reason Penn and other colleges are being subjected to such criticism is that they have not applied this policy on a consistent basis. As just one example, it was reported the female swimmers at Penn who objected to a female identifying biological male competing with them and showering in the women’s locker room displaying full male genitalia were ordered by the school to cease their complaints. The reality is that colleges and universities across the country have systematically restricted free speech on campuses with respect to positions taken that do not correspond to their prevailing ideology. An absolutist free speech position like the one you are taking must be consistently applied. Third, as a former Trustee of two colleges, I think your position will not be acceptable to college communities. Appropriately, they argue for distinguishing between “free speech” and “hate speech”. There have been numerous abuses of this position (“cancel culture”) but I believe it is possible to craft a sensible definition of hate speech. Advocacy of terrorism, antisemitism or racism could be prohibited under clear and consistently applied standards. Finally, I support private entities’ right to choose not to employ persons whose expressed views are abhorrent. There is no legal (or practical) basis for restricting their right to set standards of acceptable discourse in their institutions so long as these policies do not violate civil rights laws.
I understand where you’re coming from, but those who are saying as business owners and executives that they don’t want these people in their offices do not have to make such a decision trying to regard what the consequence to that hateful student would be. Who cares? Their job is to protect their culture if they choose, and rejecting people who glory in the massacre of others is probably not great for culture. The free speech is great, just so you get to know what kind of people you’re dealing with. Out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks.
In general I agree but.... you fail to address the fact that many of those expressing their "free speech" are also engaged in suppressing free speech by denying pro Israel students or student groups their right to participate in student organizations and are responsible for "bullying" Jewish students. This has been going on for years now. Shouldn't we expect that they not be given a platform and funding by the University? Why have these universities failed to take action against them and instead, under the cover of free speech, allowed them to continue their harmful activities?
Of course we should deport aliens in our country who support barbarism and genocide. Theodore Roosevelt explained concisely that anyone who comes to America to be an American - adopting the American flag, language, culture and people as his or her own - belongs here. But not the unassimilated and those who hate their fellow Americans. So Senator Cotton is right and Strossen and Paresky are wrong.
Moreover, the article (not a case) cited by Strossen and Paresky ends with this "The Supreme Court has yet to sort out the rights of aliens residing legally or illegally in the United States." So it should be clear that we can deport any fifth columnist not legally in the US. (which includes Ilan Omar, btw). Furthermore, those on student visas are not lawfully residing in our nation - unlike green card holders. They are mere visitors on an extended stay and may be sent packing for supporting enemy causes (which Hamas is, just in case you missed it). So Senator Cotton is on sound Constitutional grounds, as well.
In the final analysis, we must never forget the warning of Justice Jackson in Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949): “There is a danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.” In trying to protect foreign agents fomenting hatred and barbarism in our streets, Strossen and Paresky would do just that
It really didn't take so long for some of the people who wanted to silence others were shocked to discover that they were going to be silenced. I don't know if any of the pro-Hamas protestors supported silencing/punishing people that expressed differing opinions ("I disagree with full term abortions", "Masks don't work", "I voted for Trump", "There is science that disagrees with Fauci"). The problem with censorship is that those that support it only want people they disagree with to be censored. It never works that way. Loss of freedom of speech is loss of freedom.
I am a free speech absolutist. I am also an absolutist when it comes to employers choosing to not bring violence-supporting creatures into their organizations. I am heartened by those in the donor class having some moral backbone. The NYU law student who lost her job offer is not being threatened with violence or not being able to support herself. She is welcome to go get a job with whoever wants someone of her low caliber on payroll.
Excellent article. We have to defend free speech. That said, I agree with those who say that companies are under no obligation to hire people who advocate for mass murder of Jews. Employee free speech isn’t really protected if you’re an at-will, non-union employee in most states. If offers would be rescinded if a candidate expressed a wish to kill large groups of people who are say black, no one would think twice about rescinding the offer. I agree we must protect free speech and hold the moral authority on that while the far Left attempts to destroy anyone who says something even slightly off the woke script. The woman whose offer was rescinded was not applying for just any job. Lawyers are joining a profession and can be held to ethical standards of professional conduct, at work and in public. This is not a job that people take just to pay the bills. I work as a freelance writer and live on much less than I could make at a normal job in large part so that I can write freely without fear of reprisals from an employer. On my previous jobs that would not be possible. Taking a job with a law firm means you have to fit in with their culture, which might mean not advocating for the slaughter of people in the office next door. That being said, I defend people’s right to protest, write, speak and sing within the First Amendment limits and protections. The Left certainly doesn’t defend those rights until it comes to protecting antisemitic speech. It’s also scary to see campuses paying no attention to the safety and mental health of their Jewish students. Supporting all students at a time like this should be the priority. Too many students at Ivy League schools (of which I’m an alum) are dying by suicide as it is. An atmosphere where Jewish students see other minorities protected from micro aggressions while they are subject to calls for violence against Jews outside their dorm rooms is certainly going to make them feel unsafe. I’ve read statements of small less prestigious schools offering support to all students at this time. Jewish, Muslim or otherwise, many have family and friends in the affected area and we are all very afraid as a global conflict erupts. Young people need support and guidance from rational adults. I hope a few get that somewhere.
I have to wonder if these free speech advocates—with whom I largely agree-- wrote prominently, if at all, during the last 20+ years, while academia, most of the “legacy” media, and our other corrupt institutions and “elite” centers of influence, waged war on pro-Israel advocates, conservatives, and anyone else who didn’t toe the “Progressive’” line. Many innocent careers and lives were, and continue to be, ruined by this McCarthyesque reign of terror.
So the author didn’t address the government cracking down on white supremacy groups. Not that I would ever support or condone white supremacy in any way. I think it’s very clear that the government has aggressively applied hate laws to these groups. Why does this not apply to students advocating for the death of all Jews? Either we apply hate laws consistently or get rid of them entirely. I don’t like hate laws for this reason. They are not applied consistently for political reasons.
I think free speech is absolute. I think the consequences are too. If you are someone who advocates for genocide I think you should be shunned. There should be redemption, but it should be a long hard road to convince civilized people you belong in polite society ever again. If someone loses their job due to advocating genocide that seems like a reasonable punishment. Free speech is an awesome responsibility that we shouldn’t take lightly.
I think this article is well written, and a fine explanation of how and why we need First Amendment protections. However...
Regarding employers are not hiring, or rescinding offers to some of the student anti-semites is interesting. Progressive mobs via X/Twitter thought nothing of either driving a business to fire someone, or social media platforms to censor, shadow-ban, or outright deplatform someone for speech thought to be, "hateful," or "problematic."
Now that it's happening to those on the left, now we should be concerned with employers deciding who they hire simply because of a "different" opinion? I guess the idea of a diverse, inclusive, and safe work environment doesn't include gross anti-semitism, and a call for the outright extermination of a people based on their religion.
Employers should be able to ignore an applicant, or rescind an offer of employment if said applicant has shown they are a bigoted and hate filled person. And as far and I'm concerned, anti-semitism is just another form of bigotry and prejudice.
I think these protests are dangerous for the Jewish people. I see the speeches as fomenting hate; hate that apparently already exists. In this case it is dangerous for all of us.
All over the world people fear of a world war.
The thirty odd student groups that stated their beliefs that Israel was to blame for atrocities all had Islamist associations.
The ideology that the world can be divided into oppressed and oppressors has been promoted in education across all western societies. Even if the oppression happened fifty or two hundred years ago.
The other current chaos is the no borders ideology that has also been promoted. The mixing of large swaths of peoples from different cultures has created conflicts.
In this case it may be true that it is also one sided.
Universities have coddled their students for too long. The hypocrisy is blinding in this moment. They have spoken out freely against fairly normal conservative American views allowing their students to protest against them, allowing free speech to be denied on campuses because their feelings are hurt, or their students are allowed certain views to be hate speech using the argument their feelings are hurt.
Now, the current antisemitism, which is in fact hate speech, which just might lead to a clash of armies, they suddenly are for absolute free speech. Can only speak in ambiguous terms.
The hypocrisy is in full view. It is time for a reckoning of what it is that we as Americans want. We were founded on ideals, ideas not on what color our skin is, or what country we came from. Immigrants came here because they wanted free speech, opportunities, freedom from religious persecution.
Something has changed and it seems some want to change America into something else.
The great reset, replacement of people’s and culture. Have we decided as a people this what we want?
I am all for free speech. We should listen carefully to what all these protesters say.
Personally I am exhausted from years of screaming activists demanding something from the rest of us.
I would broads cast every word in the raw and let people judge. Far more pernicious are media outlets who sanitize hate and brutality with code words and euphemisms.
I say this somewhat ironically, but turn about is fair play. I refuse to feel sympathy for these people considering the fact they don’t care about free speech, just their speech, and they are more than happy to silence dissenting views.
And where I disagree with this analysis is that the desire to not associate with or not employ pro-Hamas supporters or antisemites does not look to be driven by retaliation or rage, but by horror and disgust. And that’s a good thing. People and businesses freely choosing to dissociate from people, universities and organizations that express noxious views is a good thing. It means the average American is still decent. It means our nation still has an immune system that can fight these bad ideas with better, truer ideas. It means we can win.
It's nice that the writers recognize the First Amendment rights of those associated with the Left, as virtually all of the pro-Hamas activists are. I happen to agree. But where were the writers' columns regarding the inviolability of the First Amendment when, for years, those on the right were being cancelled wholesale by those same activists? After all, cancel culture was invented by the Left.
Free speech is important, if only to allow people to show their true colors. And to take the pressure out of the kettle. The last week has shown clearly a lot of the issues in our university system, and how broken it is.
That said, speech also has consequences. You want to be hateful that is fine - just don’t expect that to increase your employment choices or friendship groups.
A few comments on your thoughtful article. First, as you know, the First Amendment does not apply to private universities or companies. So we are free to debate its applicability to these institutions. Second, while one can take a position that a college should allow unrestricted free speech however offensive it may be, the reason Penn and other colleges are being subjected to such criticism is that they have not applied this policy on a consistent basis. As just one example, it was reported the female swimmers at Penn who objected to a female identifying biological male competing with them and showering in the women’s locker room displaying full male genitalia were ordered by the school to cease their complaints. The reality is that colleges and universities across the country have systematically restricted free speech on campuses with respect to positions taken that do not correspond to their prevailing ideology. An absolutist free speech position like the one you are taking must be consistently applied. Third, as a former Trustee of two colleges, I think your position will not be acceptable to college communities. Appropriately, they argue for distinguishing between “free speech” and “hate speech”. There have been numerous abuses of this position (“cancel culture”) but I believe it is possible to craft a sensible definition of hate speech. Advocacy of terrorism, antisemitism or racism could be prohibited under clear and consistently applied standards. Finally, I support private entities’ right to choose not to employ persons whose expressed views are abhorrent. There is no legal (or practical) basis for restricting their right to set standards of acceptable discourse in their institutions so long as these policies do not violate civil rights laws.
I understand where you’re coming from, but those who are saying as business owners and executives that they don’t want these people in their offices do not have to make such a decision trying to regard what the consequence to that hateful student would be. Who cares? Their job is to protect their culture if they choose, and rejecting people who glory in the massacre of others is probably not great for culture. The free speech is great, just so you get to know what kind of people you’re dealing with. Out of the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks.
In general I agree but.... you fail to address the fact that many of those expressing their "free speech" are also engaged in suppressing free speech by denying pro Israel students or student groups their right to participate in student organizations and are responsible for "bullying" Jewish students. This has been going on for years now. Shouldn't we expect that they not be given a platform and funding by the University? Why have these universities failed to take action against them and instead, under the cover of free speech, allowed them to continue their harmful activities?
Of course we should deport aliens in our country who support barbarism and genocide. Theodore Roosevelt explained concisely that anyone who comes to America to be an American - adopting the American flag, language, culture and people as his or her own - belongs here. But not the unassimilated and those who hate their fellow Americans. So Senator Cotton is right and Strossen and Paresky are wrong.
Moreover, the article (not a case) cited by Strossen and Paresky ends with this "The Supreme Court has yet to sort out the rights of aliens residing legally or illegally in the United States." So it should be clear that we can deport any fifth columnist not legally in the US. (which includes Ilan Omar, btw). Furthermore, those on student visas are not lawfully residing in our nation - unlike green card holders. They are mere visitors on an extended stay and may be sent packing for supporting enemy causes (which Hamas is, just in case you missed it). So Senator Cotton is on sound Constitutional grounds, as well.
In the final analysis, we must never forget the warning of Justice Jackson in Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949): “There is a danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.” In trying to protect foreign agents fomenting hatred and barbarism in our streets, Strossen and Paresky would do just that
It really didn't take so long for some of the people who wanted to silence others were shocked to discover that they were going to be silenced. I don't know if any of the pro-Hamas protestors supported silencing/punishing people that expressed differing opinions ("I disagree with full term abortions", "Masks don't work", "I voted for Trump", "There is science that disagrees with Fauci"). The problem with censorship is that those that support it only want people they disagree with to be censored. It never works that way. Loss of freedom of speech is loss of freedom.
I am a free speech absolutist. I am also an absolutist when it comes to employers choosing to not bring violence-supporting creatures into their organizations. I am heartened by those in the donor class having some moral backbone. The NYU law student who lost her job offer is not being threatened with violence or not being able to support herself. She is welcome to go get a job with whoever wants someone of her low caliber on payroll.
Thank you. The remedy for hate speech always and ever has been more speech. It astonishes me how few people now understand this.
Excellent article. We have to defend free speech. That said, I agree with those who say that companies are under no obligation to hire people who advocate for mass murder of Jews. Employee free speech isn’t really protected if you’re an at-will, non-union employee in most states. If offers would be rescinded if a candidate expressed a wish to kill large groups of people who are say black, no one would think twice about rescinding the offer. I agree we must protect free speech and hold the moral authority on that while the far Left attempts to destroy anyone who says something even slightly off the woke script. The woman whose offer was rescinded was not applying for just any job. Lawyers are joining a profession and can be held to ethical standards of professional conduct, at work and in public. This is not a job that people take just to pay the bills. I work as a freelance writer and live on much less than I could make at a normal job in large part so that I can write freely without fear of reprisals from an employer. On my previous jobs that would not be possible. Taking a job with a law firm means you have to fit in with their culture, which might mean not advocating for the slaughter of people in the office next door. That being said, I defend people’s right to protest, write, speak and sing within the First Amendment limits and protections. The Left certainly doesn’t defend those rights until it comes to protecting antisemitic speech. It’s also scary to see campuses paying no attention to the safety and mental health of their Jewish students. Supporting all students at a time like this should be the priority. Too many students at Ivy League schools (of which I’m an alum) are dying by suicide as it is. An atmosphere where Jewish students see other minorities protected from micro aggressions while they are subject to calls for violence against Jews outside their dorm rooms is certainly going to make them feel unsafe. I’ve read statements of small less prestigious schools offering support to all students at this time. Jewish, Muslim or otherwise, many have family and friends in the affected area and we are all very afraid as a global conflict erupts. Young people need support and guidance from rational adults. I hope a few get that somewhere.
I have to wonder if these free speech advocates—with whom I largely agree-- wrote prominently, if at all, during the last 20+ years, while academia, most of the “legacy” media, and our other corrupt institutions and “elite” centers of influence, waged war on pro-Israel advocates, conservatives, and anyone else who didn’t toe the “Progressive’” line. Many innocent careers and lives were, and continue to be, ruined by this McCarthyesque reign of terror.
So the author didn’t address the government cracking down on white supremacy groups. Not that I would ever support or condone white supremacy in any way. I think it’s very clear that the government has aggressively applied hate laws to these groups. Why does this not apply to students advocating for the death of all Jews? Either we apply hate laws consistently or get rid of them entirely. I don’t like hate laws for this reason. They are not applied consistently for political reasons.
I think free speech is absolute. I think the consequences are too. If you are someone who advocates for genocide I think you should be shunned. There should be redemption, but it should be a long hard road to convince civilized people you belong in polite society ever again. If someone loses their job due to advocating genocide that seems like a reasonable punishment. Free speech is an awesome responsibility that we shouldn’t take lightly.
I think this article is well written, and a fine explanation of how and why we need First Amendment protections. However...
Regarding employers are not hiring, or rescinding offers to some of the student anti-semites is interesting. Progressive mobs via X/Twitter thought nothing of either driving a business to fire someone, or social media platforms to censor, shadow-ban, or outright deplatform someone for speech thought to be, "hateful," or "problematic."
Now that it's happening to those on the left, now we should be concerned with employers deciding who they hire simply because of a "different" opinion? I guess the idea of a diverse, inclusive, and safe work environment doesn't include gross anti-semitism, and a call for the outright extermination of a people based on their religion.
Employers should be able to ignore an applicant, or rescind an offer of employment if said applicant has shown they are a bigoted and hate filled person. And as far and I'm concerned, anti-semitism is just another form of bigotry and prejudice.
I think these protests are dangerous for the Jewish people. I see the speeches as fomenting hate; hate that apparently already exists. In this case it is dangerous for all of us.
All over the world people fear of a world war.
The thirty odd student groups that stated their beliefs that Israel was to blame for atrocities all had Islamist associations.
The ideology that the world can be divided into oppressed and oppressors has been promoted in education across all western societies. Even if the oppression happened fifty or two hundred years ago.
The other current chaos is the no borders ideology that has also been promoted. The mixing of large swaths of peoples from different cultures has created conflicts.
In this case it may be true that it is also one sided.
Universities have coddled their students for too long. The hypocrisy is blinding in this moment. They have spoken out freely against fairly normal conservative American views allowing their students to protest against them, allowing free speech to be denied on campuses because their feelings are hurt, or their students are allowed certain views to be hate speech using the argument their feelings are hurt.
Now, the current antisemitism, which is in fact hate speech, which just might lead to a clash of armies, they suddenly are for absolute free speech. Can only speak in ambiguous terms.
The hypocrisy is in full view. It is time for a reckoning of what it is that we as Americans want. We were founded on ideals, ideas not on what color our skin is, or what country we came from. Immigrants came here because they wanted free speech, opportunities, freedom from religious persecution.
Something has changed and it seems some want to change America into something else.
The great reset, replacement of people’s and culture. Have we decided as a people this what we want?
I am all for free speech. We should listen carefully to what all these protesters say.
Personally I am exhausted from years of screaming activists demanding something from the rest of us.
I would broads cast every word in the raw and let people judge. Far more pernicious are media outlets who sanitize hate and brutality with code words and euphemisms.
I say this somewhat ironically, but turn about is fair play. I refuse to feel sympathy for these people considering the fact they don’t care about free speech, just their speech, and they are more than happy to silence dissenting views.
And where I disagree with this analysis is that the desire to not associate with or not employ pro-Hamas supporters or antisemites does not look to be driven by retaliation or rage, but by horror and disgust. And that’s a good thing. People and businesses freely choosing to dissociate from people, universities and organizations that express noxious views is a good thing. It means the average American is still decent. It means our nation still has an immune system that can fight these bad ideas with better, truer ideas. It means we can win.
It's nice that the writers recognize the First Amendment rights of those associated with the Left, as virtually all of the pro-Hamas activists are. I happen to agree. But where were the writers' columns regarding the inviolability of the First Amendment when, for years, those on the right were being cancelled wholesale by those same activists? After all, cancel culture was invented by the Left.
Free speech is important, if only to allow people to show their true colors. And to take the pressure out of the kettle. The last week has shown clearly a lot of the issues in our university system, and how broken it is.
That said, speech also has consequences. You want to be hateful that is fine - just don’t expect that to increase your employment choices or friendship groups.