The idea that saying things about Jews or Israel that are contrary to the approved narrative is hate speech is dangerous. Antisemitism is a thing, but as I warned previously, it continues to be wielded with destructive effect. Anti-Semitism can’t be dismissed, nor can it be allowed to infringe, but laws to address it look a lot like anti-speech laws to me. Yes, there is hate in the world, and yes, there is hate against Jews, but it cannot be used as a wedge to take away our right to free speech.
This is a problem in general, certainly for America, but particularly for the Trump movement. We rode this freight train into the White House a second time, fueled by the idea that the words in the Constitution mean something. Borders mean something. Citizenship means something. Our founding means something. The rule of law means something, and we need to protect that because the misinformation/disinformation hate speech-wielding globalists are always on the wrong side of our First Amendment rights, and most of the rest of our rights as well.
THEY use events as excuses to erode natural rights, and if we allow that who is left to guard the flame of liberty?
This is a problem for the New Right. Trump’s new right. Take Gaza, for example. No one much cares if your goal is to wipe out terrorists who are killing jews, Christians, and Muslims, but accusing people who object to civilian casualties of antisemitism – assuming you even think those exist in Gaza – is speech suppression.
It is not anti-Israel or anti-Jew; it is pro-free speech.
Israel has a right to defend itself, but silencing people who disagree with how it does it is censorship. The US Constitution offers no special exceptions. The 14th Amendment ties states to the Bill of Rights. The government is prohibited from making laws abridging free speech or free press.
I’ll be honest. It doesn’t bother me as much as it should that Israel has made it its mission to level Gaza if that is what is needed to get rid of Hamas. I’ve long thought that, as the only functioning multi-cultural democracy in the region (as functional as any such thing can be), Israel deserves a bit of deference given its circumstances; many around them want to erase them. They do not appear to have many reliable friends in the world. [Related: Supporters of “Palestinians” Have Free Speech Rights Too!]
That is not a license to censor people who disagree with any part or angle of that complex subject. Its complexity is just another reason why we cannot allow anyone to label anything that appears anti-Israel or anti Jew as anti-Semitic to shut down debate.
The typical rules for free speech do apply. Don’t be an asshole and make threats of real or implied violence. Stick to the issues and the facts as you understand them. Carrying out this method in the public square through lawful and peaceful protest is likewise protected. Laws that suggest we should censor an opinion that appears to support terrorist organizations or our global enemies are dangerous and should instead be met with more speech.
Do not let inflamed passions invite exceptions. That is the methodology of the Progressive left. Use emotion to infringe or take away natural rights.
We have laws for criminal threatening and assault. We have laws for libel and slander. Murder is a crime no matter who or why. Inciting violence is not protected speech.
All of this will likely piss some people off but that’s what free speech does. It invites ideas that challenge paradigms, much like our trust in public health or even the government before COVID, which deserve to be criticized and reevaluated based on those actions. It is not anti-government to ask questions.
I’m not defending the grotesque violence that prompted Israel’s invasion of Gaza. I’m not making excuses for the torture or other abuse, including rape of hostages by Hamas. They offend me in ways I can’t adequately explain. Nor am I denouncing Israel for its response. I’m defending the right of everyone in America to have and express an opinion about those things, and it cannot be antisemitic to take a contrary position.
Natural rights transcend all of that, so we need to be willing to take a critical self-examination of our own opinions on, well, everything. I don’t yet have an issue with America deporting foreign students who speak out in ways that appear to support Hamas, but maybe I should.
All while accepting that the global rise in hate against Jews is real, but it gets a lot more attention and consideration than the rise in hate against Christians, and no one is concerned all that much about suppressing anti-Christian speech, hateful or otherwise. Is there even a word for it?
I don’t think there are speech exceptions for blacks, Latinos, women, gays, white liberal women, transgender-whatever you are today, or anyone else. You say it knowing you have to stand behind it, and the community will let you know.
I expect some backlash for revisiting this, but that’s the point. It’s a founding principle. That’s what we try to do here. If you don’t or can’t understand, I’ve either failed to articulate my point properly, or you’ve failed to grasp it, or you’re not yet ready to accept the unpleasant reality that comes with the right to free speech.
It means the right to offend anyone, everyone, at any time.
It’s quite the mess, but then it’s not. Absent threats or incitement, it’s free speech, at least in the United States. And you don’t have to like it, you can even hate it, but if you believe in the Trump movements presumed fidelity to the Bill or Rights then you have to suck it up or find a way to excuse your support for silencing one type of speech but not another.
Agree? Disagree? Submit Op-Eds to steve@granitegrok.com – We want to hear from you, too!
