This is been the single best week in years for the cause of limiting free expression and free discourse at colleges.
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 8, 2023
Anyone who claims they believe in free speech - while they cheer the union of hedge fund billionaire and DC politicians to impose speech limits - is a fraud. https://t.co/PVBoMZy9o1
AND:This is the free speech group -- the only one -- doing what ACLU once did. I's so glad they exist.
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 8, 2023
What makes them extra impressive is that they grew because conservatives applauded them for defending right-wing students' speech, but now do the same for pro-Palestinian speech: https://t.co/aRJdBZCI3D
3/ If Penn were to retreat from 1A principles, administrators would inevitably make arbitrary, political decisions about who may speak and what they may say on campus.
— FIRE (@TheFIREorg) December 8, 2023
Universities cannot censor their way into a more tolerant and welcoming campus.https://t.co/LYOcN0Vj4j
Posts
89 comments:
You assholes - where was this ambition when the same colleges were classifying and prohibiting ‘hate speech’? Which rock will you crawl back under when someone says something you don’t want to be heard?
Who is calling for ‘free speech limits’ Greenwald references, btw? I missed that one…
Glenn Greenwald for President.
There have always been time/place/manner restrictions. An Oxford-style debate on the motion “This House will not tolerate the existence of a Zionist government in Palestine” versus rampaging through the Yard, blocking access, and screaming “River/Sea” while wearing Arafat’s trademark do-rag. Same content, different time/place/manner.
That said, Harvard Evangelicals should take this opportunity to march around chanting:
“FROM THE BERKSHIRES, TO THE BAY — COME AND PRAY THE GAY AWAY!!!!”
and
“TEAR DOWN THE MINARETS, RING THE BELLS - YOUR PROPHET SUCKS BIG COCKS IN HELL!!!”
JSM
The #10 arms supplier to the world needs your help fighting those evil Palestinians, who've been taking advantage of them over the land Zionists acquired fair and square, because - everybody knows and anybody can see - "a land without a people for a people without a land" was so true it still hurts to even think about it.
Calling for genicide against the Jews is not acceptable campus rhetoric. Glenn is wrong.
Alienation is part of Jewish culture, expressed by Hegel as unhappy consciousness. Attachment to prophets rather than (early Greek, members of the polis) philosophers.
It's an enormous creative resource in the hands of Jewish scholars, and a source of finding antisemiticism everywhere in the hands of the lesser types.
The antisemiticism everywhere mob are the ones in charge politically now. They recognize something that might actually be antisemiticism.
Or it could be part of the antiwhite movement just translated to middle east players.
Whataver, they're loud about it.
On Hamas rapes, they're not rapes. They're tribal war devices to humiliate the husbands, as in the Bosnian war. Not much to do with women's groups.
FREE SPEECH LIMITS: New Jersey man Edward Mathews who screamed racial slurs at his black neighbors is jailed for EIGHT YEARS after shocking video of his abusive rant went viral: Felon sobbed as he apologized for terrorizing victims
I bet you, if we were in a Court of Law, a lot of people on this blog couldn't answer the question: "Why do you keep fucking with this black guy?"
This loser called his black neighbors 'monkeys' - Oligonicella prefers the term "pissy cotton-heads any day." It's comments like that, that explain why he's held in such good standing around here, while I'm badgered, daily.
If we were offline, I'd also fully expect "feces on their property,...threatening emails, and shot BB pellets at their cars" - all because I don't like what I've learned about Zionism. OK, that's a lie: y'all were dicks before that. I'd expect it because I didn't morph into Thomas Sowell, scoffing at blacks for not knowing things. How did Hey Skipper phrase it?
"You inflicted upon all of us your profound ignorance"
And, Lord Knows, no white American can survive being exposed to that: as we all know, they melt like the Wicked Witch of the West, whenever they encounter the fruits of their nation's labors.
Econtalk (hosted by Russ Roberts in Jerusalem) finally ran out of pre-October 7 material and started covering the war, this first episode being an Israeli arguing both sides in turn, wearing a Palestinian hat and wearing an Israeli hat.
Econtalk Yossi Klein Halevi
john mosby said...
“FROM THE BERKSHIRES, TO THE BAY — COME AND PRAY THE GAY AWAY!!!!”
and
“TEAR DOWN THE MINARETS, RING THE BELLS - YOUR PROPHET SUCKS BIG COCKS IN HELL!!!”
Why is it, every time someone tries to take-down the vague "from the river to the sea," they use examples that are more specific than the Palestinian slogan? There's nothing about a specific people, or action, in the Palestinian slogan, but you scream "GAYS!" and mention "MINARETS" so there's no doubt what YOU mean.
Can't you see the difference - or that you're purposefully using the most negative interpretation of "from the river to the sea" to maker your argument?
Great post by John Mosby.
The elite college presidents have a right to be pro-Nazi - pro-hamas... cold-hearted to the murders - the heinous vicious sneak-attack murders of innocent civilians that occurred on 7/10.
They have a right to be fired.
Jim Banks was upset because the UPenn president banned speech by a Trump appointee.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/banks-torches-upenn-president-over-professor-calling-for-intifada-school-s-past-rejection-of-trump-ice-director/vi-AA1l2VWJ
Get real.
these same universities would, and do, ban Ben Shapiro because he is non-leftist. He is conservative. "He is a threat to democracy!" they would scream.
Oh but allowing pro-Hamas students to threaten Jewish students... with violence and threats of violence? That's your free speech!? All while the president of these universities do nothing or yammer crap about "context" as they LET the Jew-haters run wild on campus with their threats of violence. oh hey - just a little free Nazi speech.
Context and sh*t. y'all.
Free speech absolutist here - up and until there is promotion of Nazi violence.
Meanwhile MIT is introducing racially segregated dorms for whites, Asians and other non-black students.
Sounds like a victory for white supremacy. I assume that the separate dorms will be equal.
What's next? Different, more relaxed, grading standards for black MIT students? Yeah, that's the ticket. Give them a degree and lots of debt and no chance of a commensurate job (because the degree will be recognized as worthless)
But let's worry about speech.
Not that we shouldn't worry about it. But it seems down the list of problems at MIT.
John Henry
Back at ya.
What is so scary about someone shouting "fire" in today's movie theatre. They're well lit and sprinklered with communications to local Fire Departments.
BTW...
Joseph Goebbels, a chief instigator of the Kristallnacht pogroms, suggested to the convened Nazi 'Old Guard' that 'World Jewry' had conspired to commit the assassination. He announced that "the Führer has decided that … demonstrations should not be prepared or organized by the Party, but insofar as they erupt spontaneously, they are not to be hampered."
If those university presidents had been practicing strong 1st Amendment principles to begin with, the questions would have been slam dunk to answer
The University of Pennsylvania campus is a hotbed of antisemitism, with students openly chanting, “We are Hamas,” and others accused of hate-motivated crimes still allowed in class, The Post has learned.
But if you have a pro-Hamas /Anti-Israel bias in the media - threats of violence against Jews is just "Free speech"
Got it?
Crack has the straight poop on the world's top ten arms dealers?
Heh Heh I'll stick with Ryan Mcbeth.
https://ryanmcbeth.substack.com/
Holy s***! Hamas Fanboy Crack is STILL completely ignorant of alk the legal Jewish land purchases prior to 1948!!
STILL!
I'll bet working this hard to stay perpetually ignorant and stupid is literally the hardest "work" Crack hss ever done in his entire life!
And the buffoon drops his Hamas suck-uppery into a free speech policy/discussion thread! Crack's terrorist Hamas adoration has therefore morphed into a pro-7th Century Death Cult Tourette's Syndrome!
Time for a little more fun with our resident Loud and Proud pro-Hamas idiot Crack:
What % of Israeli arms sales are defensive systems?
What % of Israeli arms sales are to Arab partners and/or in conjunction with Arab partners to 3rd parties per the Abraham Accords?
ooo send in the task force!
How hard is it to enforce your own policy?
The UPenn pres should resign. she's is a weak disgrace.
"President Liz Magill told a congressional hearing Tuesday the university has formed an antisemitism task force, but her job hangs in the balance after she refused to say at the hearing calling for genocide against Jewish people violated the school’s code of conduct."
Rehajm: "Who is calling for ‘free speech limits’ Greenwald references, btw? I missed that one…"
Almost no one.
What has been obvious is the very selective application of University free speech "protections" based on individual/group viewpoints and marxist white/non-white, oporessor/oppressed and colonizer/settler frameworks.
Tara Tarawneh, a 20-year-old college junior was still attending class this week, according to sources, despite praising terror group Hamas for its “glorious Oct. 7” terror attack on Israel which left 1,200 dead and over 200 more Israelis taken hostage.
UPenn student Eyal Yakoby claimed to The Post there are still "professors and students" at the university who he says are "openly antisemitic."
Is it illegal to shame these a-holes?
Free speech goes 2-ways. All Hamas-loving Nazis should at least be shamed.
BY NAME. After all - they are openly proud of their pro-Hamas/ pro-murder purity.
"What Do We Really Know about Evangelicals and American Politics?" was held on March 9, 2021, and sponsored by the Harvard Divinity School Office of Ministry Studies.
The conclusion at the event: "81% supported Donald Trump in the 2016 election, leaving just 19% were Never Trumpers in the evangelical community.
So “FROM THE BERKSHIRES, TO THE BAY — COME AND PRAY THE GAY AWAY!!!!” is a Donald Trumpism.
gadfly - you really are a ridiculous turd.
"Hate Speech" laws are inane nonsense. Their introduction revealed that the left was shifting from myopic free-everything-for-everyone (e.g., atheism, unregulated nudity and sex, uncensored language) to myopic and dogmatic firm (and quite conservative) beliefs. Some people express irrational, mentally-ill "hate" that results in actual crimes. Others have controlled, internal "hate" that no one can reliably detect or prosecute. No one can prosecute unspoken thoughts, and...lefty college presidents can't condemn antisemitism...so by their own standards First Amendment hostile/genocidal beliefs can't be a crime either...
In being hoisted on their own petards, those who wanted hate speech laws ended up with blacks be prosecuted for a disproportionate percentage of hate crimes. Social justice cannot have its DEI program cake and eat it too.
21% of hate crime offenders in 2022 were black
https://www.justice.gov/hatecrimes/hate-crime-statistics
12.4% of the population in 2020 was black
https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/08/improved-race-ethnicity-measures-reveal-united-states-population-much-more-multiracial.html
Do you police hate speech or defund the police...? What do AOC and the Squad and Greta say?
Rehajm (5:22) and John Mosby (5:26) make the same point I did in an earlier discussion. FIRE is right to worry about free speech rights, but this was not and is not a free speech issue. And I do not think there is any danger of it leading to further restrictions on speech at these institutions, since speech is already restricted there as much as they can ever get away with. I believe this incident in fact signals a key turning point against the effort to suppress speech, and will be seen as such in the future.
That is, as I said earlier, this was not posed to these three women as a free speech issue; it was posed as a code of conduct issue. Stefanik very specifically tried to get the three women to simply say "yes," that an endorsement of genocide of the Jews would violate their codes of conduct. If this were a free speech issue, the women would have been right to say such comments would be protected unless they posed an imminent threat of violence (which standard by the way they could not even articulate accurately). But what Stefanik asked was not about free speech rights at all, it was about codes of conduct. Private institutions have always had the right to impose speech restrictions on their members as a part of their codes of conduct. The three women defaulted to a defense of free speech rights to explain what has in fact been their institutions' indifference to the plight of Jews and their Jewish students. The real disgrace here is not their irrelevant defense of free speech rights in the abstract, it is their sheer hypocrisy in pretending to care about free speech rights at all. Harvard has in recent decades trampled on the free speech rights of many students and faculty even AS they fail to enforce any code of conduct on their leftwing students, who get to occupy buildings, intimidate other students, shout down invited speakers, etc., with impunity.
FROM THE BERKSHIRES, TO THE BAY — no, no, no it’s FROM THE TACONICS TO THE BAY
If the schools were bastions of free speech then I would sympathize with them and support their presidents. Since they’re not (bastions), then they have reaped what they have sowed. You can’t shut down speech based on your political preferences but then claim you can’t police speech because of your free speech principals which were previously non-existent.
Just to further elaborate, suppose a (clearly unarmed) student stands in the quad shouting "Kill all the blacks," "Kill all the blacks." He's no immediate threat to blacks. But does anyone doubt the authorities would be right to keep an eye on him, and the university might sanction him for such "expressive" behavior? Would FIRE seriously consider defending him as a victim of speech suppression? I do not think so, since it would be seen clearly as the code of conduct violation it is. In fact, FIRE would do well to defend the university in such a case, since it would surely defend a university's right to sanction students shouting down a speaker, even though shouting is a form of speech, is it not?
the actual nature of what happened in the Intifadas (innocent Jews slaughtered in Pizza parlors, etc.), calls for "Intifada, Intifada, Revolution," are the exact equivalent of my imagined example.
VDH: How Were the Universities Lost?
After October 7, the public was shocked at what they saw and heard on America’s campuses.
Americans knew previously they were intolerant, leftwing, and increasingly non-meritocratic.
But immediately after October 7 — and even before the response of the Israeli Defense Forces — the sheer student delight on news of the mass murdering of Israeli victims seemed akin more to 1930s Germany than contemporary America.
Indeed, not a day goes by when a university professor or student group has not spouted antisemitic hatred. Often, they threaten and attack Jewish students, or engage in mass demonstrations calling for the extinction of Israel.
Why and how did purportedly enlightened universities become incubators of such primordial hatred?"
More VDH:
"The Ivy league and their kindred so-called elite campuses may soon go the way of Disney and Bud Light.
They think such a crash in their reputations is impossible given centuries of accustomed stature.
But the erosion is already occurring — and accelerating.
At the present rate, a Stanford law degree, a Harvard political science major, or a Yale social science BA will soon scare off employers and the general public at large.
These certificates will signify not proof of humility, knowledge, and decency, but rather undeserved self-importance, vacuousness, and fanaticism — and all to be avoided rather than courted."
Acceleration!
To some extent, it's an example of why free speech works. We know now what damned fools these students, their teachers and the college presidents truly are. I don't think anyone realized the extent of the rot before.....You can't celebrate kidnappers, gang rapists, and baby killers without celebrating kidnapping, gang raping and baby murdering. How the fuck can people be that stupid?
Heh.
Exposure. ah poor white leftist.
Why is it, every time someone tries to take-down the vague "from the river to the sea," they use examples that are more specific than the Palestinian slogan?
Because it’s not at all vague. It’s a call to kill every Jew living in what is presently the sovereign nation of Israel.
I support free speech without caveats. Let everyone be very clear about what they believe, and we can make our own judgments with eyes wide open.
I’d like to see more clarity from Glenns Greenwald and Reynolds, not to mention Professor Emerita Althouse. Is there a hard, bright line between free speech that should rightly be protected and calls for rioting and mob action? And where does the entire concept of microaggressions fit in all this? We are supposed to worry about inadvertently giving offense to someone on campus but it’s perfectly okay to call for physically assaulting Jewish students and faculty?
I have relatives in my bloodline who get shot at by Confederates. I don't think those relatives made any great fuss about statues being erected to Robert E Lee or to bases being named after Confederate generals. I do know that people of my father's generation were quite thankful that all those white southerners showed up for WWII....In our own time, it's now considered a patriotic act to tear down those statues and a hate crime to argue for their continuance.....I guess double standards are part of the DNA of free speech. Thomas Jefferson who was the most eloquent about free speech and self evident rights had a few blind spots. Well, win some, lose some....I would argue that some double standards are more duplicitous than others, however. Academics and students who are so alarmed about, say, Ben Shapiro, have lost their moral standing needed to argue that their primary interest is the defense of free speech..
“We are Hamas”
Sounds to me like somebody hasn't made the case that Hamas are terrorists, since they're NOT the world's #10 arms supplier, and the Zionists are.
Re double standards: I don't agree with Glen Greenwald or Vanessa Redgrave, but I admire their purity. Greenwald who is, in his way, Jewish argues against interest and for principle in supporting the rights of pro-Hamas demonstrators. There are a lot of Jewish leftists who are only against this one particular form of censorship. They're quite okay with throwing 1/6 protestors in jail for a long time. Similarly, there are a lot of Hollywood stars who are enthusiastic about lunatic third world movements but who are noticeably reluctant to say anything critical about Israel. Jane Fonda, for example, doesn't ever wear a Palestinian shawl. So give Vanessa Redgrave credit for making her pro Palestinian statements.
I stand w Isreal. Leftists, Mullahs, Hamas-Palistinian terrorists can suck it said...
VDH is great covering WWII - his "Second World Wars" is wild - but he can sound like a fascist on domestic issues. Not always, but a lot. He just sounds old. Mind you, anyone who doesn't factor NewAge into their analysis sounds that way to me. (How is it Matt Taibbi can spend a little time with the super rich, and come back talking about "There's this quasi-religious thing that's going on" but - even though it's right under their noses - everybody else misses it?
I find such willful blindness, especially to it's effects, just incredible.
Big Mike said...
Why is it, every time someone tries to take-down the vague "from the river to the sea," they use examples that are more specific than the Palestinian slogan?
Because it’s not at all vague. It’s a call to kill every Jew living in what is presently the sovereign nation of Israel.
That's why I've heard three different meanings so far. And please point out where it specifically says that. NOT how you interpret it, but where it actually says that.
Ah Hedges, one recalls from Judith Miller that he wrote dodgy pieces about Iraq, and was not censured or fired,
"retreat from 1A principles"
Considering that two of the institutions were at the bottom of FIRE rankings to begin with, how could they possibly "retreat"?
First Amendment works because the Second Amendment something something.
I don't recall the exact quote, but the intent was to point out that when a mob exercises its right to free speech but riots at the same time, or tries to lynch somebody, everyone else gets to exercise their right to armed self defense against the criminal violence, while still honoring the exercise of free speech by the rioters. This, I think, should be the case here. Denounce your opposition, sure, fine, we might even listen. Call for intifada, start behaving violently, well then FAFO applies.
Perhaps a bit nuanced for college kids, but it makes sense from the perspective of "Yell all ya want, but take one step closer and you'll regret it."
In an email to workers on Wednesday, Solomonov and Cook apologized for not communicating about their political stances with staff more directly. The pair had sought to “avoid discussing politics at work … to make everyone as comfortable as possible in the restaurant,” the owners wrote. “But perhaps we created a void that had the opposite effect. For that, we are sorry.”
FROM: A protest against a top Israel-born chef was called antisemitic. Staff tell a different story
The staff's story is of "at least three workers fired from Solomonov’s restaurants over, as they see it, their pro-Palestine activism coming into conflict with their bosses’ views and policies, and at least one other worker who has resigned in protest"
Why? The chef "has credited Palestinian influences in his cooking," but doesn't hold fund raisers for them, but for the Zionists killing them.
The White House sent a message that they've got his back.
In an email to workers on Wednesday, Solomonov and Cook apologized for not communicating about their political stances with staff more directly. The pair had sought to “avoid discussing politics at work … to make everyone as comfortable as possible in the restaurant,” the owners wrote. “But perhaps we created a void that had the opposite effect. For that, we are sorry.”
FROM: A protest against a top Israel-born chef was called antisemitic. Staff tell a different story
The staff's story is of "at least three workers fired from Solomonov’s restaurants over, as they see it, their pro-Palestine activism coming into conflict with their bosses’ views and policies, and at least one other worker who has resigned in protest"
Why? The chef "has credited Palestinian influences in his cooking," but doesn't hold fund raisers for them, but for the Zionists killing them.
The White House sent a message that they've got his back.
Big Mike? Helloooooooo,...
Crack implies Zionists, in supplying arms to the world, are worse than the government whose sole policy towards its neighbor is genocide. He thus misses the point that weapons are capable of being used in legal defense as well as crimninal offense.
And he also misses the point that unconditional surrender by Hamas is the best way to save the lives of Palestinians.
narciso said...
"Ah Hedges, one recalls from Judith Miller that he wrote dodgy pieces about Iraq, and was not censured or fired,"
I'd like to see one of those. Care to provide any example?
FIRE ranked Penn second to last in it's free speech rankings. I have to wonder what commitment to free speech at Penn they were referring to.
Andrew Sullivan:
The critics who keep pointing out “double standards” when it comes to the inflammatory speech of pro-Palestinian students miss the point. These are not double standards. There is a single standard: It is fine to malign, abuse and denigrate “oppressors” and forbidden to do so against the “oppressed.”
Freedom of speech in the Ivy League extends exclusively to the voices of the oppressed; they are also permitted to disrupt classes, deplatform or shout down controversial speakers, hurl obscenities, force members of oppressor groups — i.e. Jewish students and teachers in the latest case — into locked libraries and offices during protests, and blocked from classrooms. Jewish students have even been assaulted — at Harvard, at Columbia, at UMass Amherst, at Tulane. Assaults by woke students used to be rare, such as the 2017 mob at Middlebury that put Allison Stanger in a neck brace — but since 10/7, they’re intensifying.
If a member of an oppressor class says something edgy, it is a form of violence. If a member of an oppressed class commits actual violence, it’s speech....
https://andrewsullivan.substack.com/p/the-day-the-empress-clothes-fell-ffa?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=61371&post_id=139417661&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=9bg2k&utm_medium=email
If you censor anything at all, you are responsible for what you don't censor. So conservatives are not asking for the selective censorship and sanctioning of pro-Hamas stuff, but for nothing to be censored or sanctioned at all.
If universities would not sanction someone for "misgendering" or "deadnaming", or if you could say "White Lives Matter" without fearing sanction, no one would have a problem with not condemning "From the river to the sea".
mikee said...
Crack implies Zionists, in supplying arms to the world, are worse than the government whose sole policy towards its neighbor is GETTING THEIR STOLEN LAND BACK.
Makes everything look different when you say it straight.
https://www.frontpagemag.com/iraq-immigrant-fires-shotgun-outside-ny-synagogue-shouts-free-palestine/
Hamas takes billions and billions in international aid - and turn it into terror tunnels, & military installations deep inside civilian structures like hospitals and schools. Weapons from Iran.
They create propaganda - that's often laughably fake. It is Hamas who are keeping the Palestinians in chains. (but then - half of them voted for Hamas/nazis)
the media (the same media who protect crook Joe) run with the fake propaganda. Recently - the hack-D corrupt press ran with photos of suffering children that were taken in other areas around the globe - like a flood in a different country... years gone by.
Crack approves.
As the IDF do all they can to thread the needle, the international leftist Israel hating community condemn in unison... forgetting Hamas' slaughter on 10/7.
Fake babies, real horror: Deepfakes from the Gaza war increase AIS power to mislead.
The Horrifying Images Are Real. But They’re Not From the Israel-Gaza War
It isn’t about not being in support of free speech. I it is about only one side getting free speech.
Tit for tat is the game theory solution to bad actors in recurrent games (l.e., sequential interactions).
I’m all for free speech, if both sides get it. If one side is denied, the ‘fairness principle (Tit for Tat) demands the other side is denied. By letting one side have a monopoly on free expression, it warps the information needed for good decisions.
Big Mike is a Big Coward now.
@Crack: . That's why I've heard three different meanings [of river to the sea] so far. And please point out where it specifically says that. NOT how you interpret it, but where it actually says that.
Without the paywall:
And please point out where it specifically says that. NOT how you interpret it, but where it actually says that.
William at 7:51
"To some extent, it's an example of why free speech works. We know now what damned fools these students, their teachers and the college presidents truly are. I don't think anyone realized the extent of the rot before.....You can't celebrate kidnappers, gang rapists, and baby killers without celebrating kidnapping, gang raping and baby murdering. How the fuck can people be that stupid?"
This is why I'm pretty much a free speech absolutist. I want these people to make themselves known.
And I don't regard making Magill's departure the basis for $100,000,000. That's not censorship, that's consequences. She should be dismissed for fecklessness. To be that clueless in front of congress tells the world you have been promoted well beyond your level of competence.
Her performance reminds me of those situations in which someone has clearly screwed up and they try to explain things beginning with "It's complicated..." Usually it isn't. Implicit In Magill's performance is the implication she is sensitive to nuances that are incomprehensible to us lesser beings.
Even if she loses this gig, it won't matter much. She'll fail upwards and be commiserated with as a martyr to the cause of context and nuance.
"Calling for genicide against the Jews is not acceptable campus rhetoric. Glenn is wrong."
Who, exactly, on college campuses, is calling for the "genocide of jews" and what exactly are they saying? As there are many who (stupidly or dishonestly) define criticism of Zionism or of Israel's action as a state entity as being anti-semitism, I'm dubious. Are criticisms of Zionism/Israel now being considered to be calls for genocide of Jews?
I agree with FIRE about what free speech requires but I’m not in favor of a regime where anti-Israel and anti-Jewish speech is protected by the first amendment but conservative speech is not.
Hey Skipper said...
@Crack: . That's why I've heard three different meanings [of river to the sea] so far. And please point out where it specifically says that. NOT how you interpret it, but where it actually says that.
I love how I don't know you from Adam - I don't think we've ever spoken before - but A) you're so immediately into me, I think you want to suck my dick, and B) you're even pretending your name is "Big Mike" now. Did you at least put on a Groucho nose-and-glasses to fool me before you decided to spring into action? I mean, what am I supposed to do with you? Show you respect? When you just decided to light into me - for no reason at all? Fuck off.
If you were Israel, I'd bomb you, too.
@Big Mike, re:clarity
I think Glenn Reynolds recent post on SubStack was quite clear though I agree Greenwald is a bit muddled (more likely the X format than his views). Jonathan Burak also gives an excellent description of how describing this particular event as related to free speech rights is a red herring. It's about how these institutions chose to implement the speech restrictions already part of their operating procedures.
As lots of people point out, if they actually had policies that were viewpoint neutral support of free speech then they would have had no problem giving yes or no answers.
It's more subtle than free vs modified speech.
Not sure Glenn would be happy if they were chanting 'Kill all gays.'
Especially if he were a current student.
Now do blacks...
Hey Skipper,
Remember these words?
"You should be apologizing for fucking with me,...How about making sure THAT "Won't happen again," Hey Skipper?"
You're a slow learner, ain't you?
I'm dubious. Are criticisms of Zionism/Israel now being considered to be calls for genocide of Jews?
"From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free"
That is a call for genocide.
It is also ignorant of the fact that the Roman name for Arabs and Jews living in the Holy Land was "Palestinian".
I'm dubious. Are criticisms of Zionism/Israel now being considered to be calls for genocide of Jews?
"From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free"
That is a call for genocide.
It is also ignorant of the fact that the Roman name for Arabs and Jews living in the Holy Land was "Palestinian".
If ‘Piss Christ’ is fit for public viewing, an worthy of defense, so should ‘Piss Koran.’
And it should be funding with a grant from the NEA.
Can't you see ... that you're purposefully using the most negative interpretation of "from the river to the sea" to maker your argument?
You know very well that you won't be able to find a single Palestinian leader anywhere who supports any other interpretation. You can't even be honest about the hate you're spreading.
What are the consequences for a student who has been found to be harassing others, hence violating the Code of Conduct? Are they suspended or expelled? Were the presidents trying to avoid a mass action against hundreds of its customers and its employees? Is that what Stefanik was after?
I am for free speech and do not believe those University presidents should be arrested or jailed. But they should be fired.
Two points:
1) For private universities, there is no first amendment issue whatsoever. A private institution can limit speech on its own property in ANY way it deems fit. I haven't read FIRE's points on this, but, if they are alleging any legal issue with any private university's speech policies, they are wrong.
2) Morally, a university is a place for reasoned discussion, which means having genuine ideological give and take. A university should allow someone to say: "Israel should not exist because of X. Now what is your response to that reason?". It should not allow someone to say: "Israel should not exist because Jews are pigs. Now shut up, I don't care what you say to that." And it should definitely forbid anything that gets anywhere near close to: "You do not have a right to an opinion on this issue because you belong to a certain 'group'". Megaphone-laden demonstrations are completely outside of a university's mission and should be forbidden, no matter what the ideological contents. These are not discussions but emetic outbursts, and do not contribute to a university's mission at all.
I know, this second ship has sailed for practically all of America's institutions of higher learning, and the issue now is hypocrisy and "optics". Call me a dreamer, but I think there's a market for the alternative.
Two points:
1) For private universities, there is no first amendment issue whatsoever. A private institution can limit speech on its own property in ANY way it deems fit. I haven't read FIRE's points on this, but, if they are alleging any legal issue with any private university's speech policies, they are wrong.
2) Morally, a university is a place for reasoned discussion, which means having genuine ideological give and take. A university should allow someone to say: "Israel should not exist because of X. Now what is your response to that reason?". It should not allow someone to say: "Israel should not exist because Jews are pigs. Now shut up, I don't care what you say to that." And it should definitely forbid anything that gets anywhere near close to: "You do not have a right to an opinion on this issue because you belong to a certain 'group'". Megaphone-laden demonstrations are completely outside of a university's mission and should be forbidden, no matter what the ideological contents. These are not discussions but emetic outbursts, and do not contribute to a university's mission at all.
I know, this second ship has sailed for practically all of America's institutions of higher learning, and the issue now is hypocrisy and "optics". Call me a dreamer, but I think there's a market for the alternative.
Big Mike said: “Is there a hard, bright line between free speech that should rightly be protected and calls for rioting and mob action?”
Of course, it’s the Brandenburg decision; true threats, specific incitement to imminent violence, etc. Ann should be able to give chapter and verse.
The real issue is the hypocrisy of the elites - they’ve spend so much time and effort suppressing speech they don’t agree with, primarily speech of a conservative nature, speech pointing out the large racial disparity in violence, etc. Now, because one of the elites’ favored causes (the elimination of the state of Israel, due to Muslims being higher up on the intersectional victimology hierarchy than Jews) is under attack by the non-woke, suddenly people such as the execrable Claudine Gay have decided that free speech trumps all. It would take a heart of stone not to laugh at the predicament their pusillanimous conduct has led to.
The solution, of course, is to go full free speech; Steven Pinker took a good crack at it the other day:
1. Clear and coherent free speech policy
2. Institutional neutrality: Universities are forums, not protagonists.
3. Force prohibited: No more heckler's vetoes, building takeovers, classroom invasions, intimidations, blockades, assaults.
4. Disempower DEI bureaucrats, responsible to no one, who have turned campuses into laughingstocks.
5. Viewpoint diversity: Discourage political & intellectual monocultures (including hard-left/PoMo/"intersectional").
I’m good with this list.
Tom T. said...
"You know very well that you won't be able to find a single Palestinian leader anywhere who supports any other interpretation. You can't even be honest about the hate you're spreading."
First of all, we're not discussing what every "single Palestinian leader anywhere" thinks, but what everyone, everywhere, chanting the slogan thinks, and they have very different interpretations. As I said, I've heard three pretty regularly. So, you're already being dishonest, as you then accuse me of spreading "hate," when - clearly - we merely disagree. That then also makes you a fanatic. Let's recap: I have heard 3 interpretations of "from the river to the sea," and you are a dishonest fanatic, accusing me of doing something awful like your name is "Karen" and not Tom T.
Get a grip on yourself, Man.
There is nothing anti-free speech about simply demanding that these universities enforce their own rules consistently. If the rules themselves are anti-free-speech, that’s on them.
Michael said @6:35, "If those university presidents had been practicing strong 1st Amendment principles to begin with, the questions would have been slam dunk to answer".
Agreed. The reason why they are in hot water is because everyone paying attention recognizes the existing double standard on college campuses. The mere existence of a conservative speaker is deemed "violence", whereas actual violence by a leftist is too often defended as "mostly peaceful protests." It's the hypocrisy that's damning these college presidents.
Someone above said, private universities can make their own rules regarding speech, and I agree with that. But the rules should be applied evenly to everyone.
Generally I'm with those who are happy to allow people to run their mouths and show us how awful and ugly they really are. Let them live with the consequences of their foul speech when they can't find any friends or employment. You're free to say what you want, and I'm free to avoid you if I find what you say repellant.
Bu actual violence, such as physical harassment , obstruction, assault, looting, arson, stealing, destruction of property, anyone engaging in those acts should be arrested. And specific threats of violence or incitements to violence, especially if they lead to actual acts of violence should be dealt with harshly. It really shouldn't be complicated. It's hypocrisy that makes it so.
Marc Lamont Hill debated a Zionist and showed those college presidents how it's done.
This is pretty much a female problem. Most women (you know it's true) believe that the First Amendment is male centered -- "free speech for all" means "free speech for men." Without censorship, bullying and cancel culture, men's voices (because men are "powerful") will drown out female voices along with the voices of other marginalized groups.
It is obvious that the female presidents of these universities believe in censorship because free speech produces something they consider dysfunctional and impoverished -- men talking. It is so sad that an entire generation of women despise their men and their opinions. It's kind of like Islam, except the women are batsh*t crazy.
"'From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free'
"That is a call for genocide."
Is it? How so? Does it necessarily mean "Kill all the Jews?" Has that meaning ever been specifically stated by the Palestinian people? Did the calls for "Freedom Now" by black Americans in the civil rights days mean they wanted all whites to be killed? That any whites must be killed?
ALL the variegated residents sharing any geographic area are free if (and only if) all are equally protected under the all, all are held equally responsible for their behavior under the the law, and all are equally free to live as, how, and where they wish under the law. (Of course, under this understanding, many in our land are still not free.)
"That is a call for genocide."
Is it? How so? Does it necessarily mean "Kill all the Jews?" Has that meaning ever been specifically stated by the Palestinian people? Did the calls for "Freedom Now" by black Americans in the civil rights days mean they wanted all whites to be killed? That any whites must be killed?
You embarrass yourself with that Clintonian answer, Cook.
Do you really support the Judenfrei solution? That puts you in interesting company.
Robert Cook - I guess you bury your head in the sand on many issues of the day.
Please watch - it's 3:40 long.
then learn something. You wont find this information in the leftist glossies.
Extraordinary video in which a Jewish student highlights the extent of antisemitism on campus at @MIT
. Elite universities and their DEI bureaucracies have failed us.
From the river to the sea is stupid but probably not genocidal when chanted by stupid students. However "Globalize the Intifada" and "You can't run, You can't hide, You are guilty of genocide" both popular chants certainly are threatening behavior. Surrounding or chasing people is conduct that should merit immediate expulsion no matter the reason. Pissing on the windows of the Hillel building should result in arrest and expulsion.
Maynard said:
"You embarrass yourself with that Clintonian answer, Cook. Do you really support the Judenfrei solution?"
I don't know what you mean by "Clintonian answer," and I do not see anything in my own comments/questions that suggest I support a "Judenfrie" solution. Again, I ask: how is "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" a call for genocide of the Jews? Has that ever been explicitly stated as its meaning by Palestinians, or is this just an interpretation that others ascribe to it? Black Americans in the civil rights years calling for "Freedom Now" were not (and today, declaring "Black Lives Matter," are not) calling for whites to be killed, (to answer my own rhetorical question), while those who oppose(d) civil rights reforms fearfully perceive(d) or (intentionally and dishonestly) ascribe(d) all manner of sinister motives to the perfectly proper and understandable desire (and demand) by black Americans for full and equal rights.
I Stand with Isreal (sic) said:
"Please watch - it's 3:40 long.
then learn something. You wont find this information in the leftist glossies."
(What "leftist glossies?")
I watched it. It is a statement by a Jewish MIT student describing hateful antisemitisim that others on campus have inflicted on Jewish students at MIT. This is deplorable and unacceptable. But it has to do with the conflicts on the MIT campus. It does not even faintly address, much less answer, my question about the purported genocidal meaning of the statement "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free."
Are there people who do mean that cry to mean genocide against the Jews? It's possible, even probable, that some do, but to what extent, if at all, can it be rightly said that this is and always has been its intended meaning, understood and shared by all Palestinians?
As I said above, ALL the variegated residents sharing any geographic area are free if (and only if) all are equally protected under the law, all are held equally responsible for their behavior under the the law, and all are equally free to live as, how, and where they wish under the law.
Post a Comment