Shame, do not silence, Hamas supporters for their speech
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The Hamas atrocity last weekend wasn't just an attack on Israel . It added another chapter in the far too long and large history of antisemitic brutality. We should not be shocked. Hamas worships antisemitism, declaring in its constitution that the Jewish "plan is embodied in the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion.'" That's all we need to know: The protocols are a product of fiction and a catch-all for antisemitic conspiracies. An excuse for perpetual pogroms.
Pogroms like that we saw last weekend. In turn, Israel is rightly receiving robust U.S. support as it moves to defend itself. Law enforcement must ensure Jewish sites are protected and that antisemitic criminals are prosecuted.
That said, we must not sacrifice sacred values at the altar of anger. For Americans, at least, free speech is a sacred value. Take these two quotes from landmark Supreme Court rulings:
"If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable," Justice William Brennan wrote in Texas v. Johnson in 1989.
"Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation, we have chosen a different course — to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in Snyder v. Phelps in 2011.
Some appear to have forgotten the Constitution these words support.
Colorado Republicans, for example, are pushing to expel an elected state House representative after he arrogantly suggested sympathy for Hamas's attack. While Colorado state Rep. Tim Hernandez's views are despicable, those seeking his expulsion ignore the fact that he is accountable to his electorate. It is undemocratic and un-American to remove legislators for expressing hateful viewpoints on matters of public import. There are other examples of this concern. In Florida, state Rep. Randy Fine claimed a new state law should be used to stop pro-Hamas protests. While that law legitimately prevents criminal harassment, it cannot be constitutionally applied to prevent protests.
So also is it the right of students at the nation's nominally most prestigious institutions to beclown themselves by pro-Hamas protests. There is an intellectual and performative idiocy to these protesters, who beclothe themselves in face masks (the imperial eagle of left-wing identity politics) and keffiyehs.
Still, the way to respond to those who support genocide against Jews is not to silence them by force of law. The best response, as John Hasson shows , is to ensure the protesters are held to the public record. So also should the views of those such as Michigan professor Erik Gordon, who likes tearing down posters for kidnapped children, be spread far and wide . We know the result: The vast majority of Americans will wish to stand apart from these fanatics in favor of the Israeli people and a more common morality.
The problem with banning pro-Hamas protests, as France has now done , or prosecuting those who wave Palestinian flags (a la the United Kingdom ) is that this approach destroys the sacred right of people to speak freely on matters that concern them. This restrictive speech stance further restrains and chills the public interest in debates on those subjects that matter most. Matters such as the current Hamas-Israel conflict. It encourages martyrdom complexes on the part of those who are restricted, fueling extremism. It denies the public ignominy due of genocide support.
Moreover, history shows that the path of limiting controversial speech does not have obvious limits or a pleasant end. Denmark's banning of Quran burning, for example, has prioritized Islamist threats over individual freedom and public discourse. The U.K. enabled Russian President Vladimir Putin and Russian organized crime by putting oligarchs before investigative journalism . China has shown the road's end with its destruction of free speech in Hong Kong.
So has Hamas, which murders homosexuals and its political opponents, and beheads babies for their parents' faith.
Tags
Who is online
489 visitors
"There's no cure for 'Stuck on Stupid'":
HBO's Bill Maher comments on the phenomenon of "queers for Palestine" and other left-wing Americans who no longer support Israel
I wonder when we will see a demonstration of Palestinians for Queers.
I take issue with this article. Although in the USA one can say whatever they want due to The First Amendment, in Canada it is tempered by the fact that speech that tends to cause harm to others is an offence, and I damn well agree with that. Times have changed. There was a time (one I wish I could be beamed back to) when we could believe the news we heard or read. That was the time of Walter Cronkite and Paul Harvey with his "Rest of the Story". That was the time before computers and internet and social news sites. That was the time when I was the Editor-in-Chief of my university newspaper and our model for both format and content was The Christian Science Monitor which had been winning year after year the award for the most unbiased content. That award is no longer in existence for obvious reasons, and if you don't know what those reasons are, they're the proliferation of misinformation, disinformation and bias being universally rained on everyone not just by newspapers and TV but by websites to everyone who has a computer or an iPhone, and perhaps it is the youth who are most misinformed because who else do you see spending a big part of their lives with their noses buried in their cellphones.
I wonder if Americans who spoke up saying Japan was justified for its attack on Pearl Harbor when it happened were tolerated because of The First Amendment, if any even had the nerve to do so. I don't think I better use 9/11 as an example for that because that was more recent and you know what I mean.
Elsewhere I blamed the downfall of the American education system for not succeeding in teaching students critical thinking and how to think for themselves rather than being so vulnerable to being influenced. In fact there are people who use TikTok who get paid to render their opinions about things and they're even CALLED "influencers" and they're successful in doing so.
The article indicates that representatives are accountable to their electorate, but am I wrong for having thought that the job of a representative was to stand for and represent to Congress what their electorate wanted rather than what their personal sympathies were? Isn't there something wrong there?