Palestine: the Pro-Israel Right’s Great Hypocrisy in Free Speech Parlance and Policy
Mostafa Bassim/Anadolu via Getty Images
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” — First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America
Pro-Palestinian students, protesters, and organizations have faced an enormous wave of censorship since October 7th. Pro-Palestinian groups have been barred from college campuses, pro-Palestinian students have been blacklisted and had job offers rescinded, and university presidents have lost their jobs for defending pro-Palestinian students’ First Amendment rights. In a radical shift away from their purported belief in freedom of speech — and their fight to expose all Americans, particularly college students, to views that may be deemed controversial, offensive, or outright harmful — many on the American political Right have embarked on an aggressive campaign to silence pro-Palestinian speech.
October 7th, the Ensuing War, and Domestic Repercussions
On the morning of October 7th, 2023, Hamas — the terrorist organization which currently governs the Gaza Strip — launched an estimated 2,200-5,000 rockets into Israel. Shortly after, an estimated 1,000 Hamas fighters breached the Israel-Gaza border and began indiscriminately killing and kidnapping Israeli civilians, soldiers, and police. 1,200 Israelis were killed and 240 were taken hostage during the attack.
Israel has retaliated by enacting a complete siege, aerial bombardment, and ground invasion of Gaza. Gaza is one of the most densely populated places on Earth and over 47% of its population are children. The Israeli military has dropped well over 30,000 tons of explosives on Gaza: more than what was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. Nearly 30,000 Gazans have been killed since October 7th (10/7).
Consequently, pro-Palestinian protests have erupted on every major college campus and in every major city in America. At virtually all of these protests, people can be heard chanting “intifada” and “Palestine will be free from the river to the sea.” For context: “intifada” is an Arabic word commonly interpreted as calling for violent revolution/civil uprising; “from the river to the sea” is commonly interpreted as calling for the destruction of the state of Israel, at least as an exclusively Jewish state, and the establishment of a Palestinian state on the land currently inhabited by the state of Israel.
Censoring, Blacklisting, and Smearing Students for Pro-Palestinian Speech
“If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.” — Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson writing for the Supreme Court in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, which held that compelling schoolchildren to salute the U.S. flag is unconstitutional
The post-10/7 war on pro-Palestinian speech has been fought at educational institutions throughout the country. In the past four months alone: Minnesota High School students were suspended for chanting “from the river to the sea,” prominent pro-Palestinian groups have been suspended from college campuses such as Columbia, Rutgers, Ohio State University, and the University of Vermont for violating rules related to on-campus events (or explicitly for making pro-Palestinian statements, as in the case of Brandeis), and State University System of Florida Chancellor Ray Rodrigues ordered all Florida state campuses to “deactivate” their Students for Justice in Palestine chapters.
Students have not been the only casualties in the post-10/7 war on free speech, though. University of Pennsylvania President Elizabeth Magill was forced to resign after she defended students’ First Amendment right to chant “intifada” and “from the river to the sea” so long as it is not “directed and severe or pervasive” and does not become conduct.
In an especially egregious example of censorship and punching-down punishment for political speech, billionaire Bill Ackman called for the names of pro-Palestinian students to be publicized and blacklisted. Ackman’s McCarthyite crusade inspired the CEOs of four major companies to join in calling for the names of pro-Palestinian students to be released and blacklisted. Additionally, two of America’s most successful and prestigious law firms rescinded job offers to law students for the sole offense of signing a letter that blamed Israel for Hamas’s attack on 10/7.
False Prophets of Free Speech
“In order to be able to think, you have to risk being offensive.” — Jordan B. Peterson
One might reasonably expect the American political Right to oppose such censorship and to defend pro-Palestinian students’ right to say contemptible things. After all, the Right (or at least those opposed to “wokeness” and “cancel culture”) have been the foremost defenders of free speech for the past decade. A central tenet of the anti-woke agenda has consistently been to combat the Left’s attempts to censor speech it deems right-wing, harmful, violent, or worthy of a “mis” or “dis” prefix.
Many of the most successful and influential figures in the anti-woke coalition built their political fame and/or fortune by championing free speech. Ben Shapiro routinely argues against “the speech is violence nonsense,” Bari Weiss “cares deeply” about having a “robust culture of free speech,” Dave Rubin famously asserted that “hate speech doesn’t exist,” and Elon Musk wrote on X that “the point of freedom of speech is allowing those whose views you disagree with to express those views.”
Thus, it follows that Shapiro, Weiss, Rubin, Musk, and others would be eager to defend Elizabeth Magill’s statements and to endorse students’ First Amendment right to chant “intifada.” But no — the pro-Israel Right has decided that speech critical of Israel is neither free nor speech. It’s violent; it’s genocidal; it’s bad words; and it's unworthy of the protection afforded to all other such speech.
10/7 and its domestic aftermath has driven a large faction of the Right, including the aforementioned free speech warriors, to betray and abandon the First Amendment and its principles. Some figures, such as Musk and Rubin, have been outspoken in their desire to censor pro-Palestinian speech.
Elon Musk, who believes that “free speech is a societal imperative for a functioning democracy,” bought Twitter for the near-sole purpose of making it “a platform for free speech around the globe.” Recently, however, Musk wrote on X that “‘decolonization,’ ‘from the river to the sea,’ and similar euphemisms… are against our terms of service and will result in suspension.” Now, there is a legitimate argument to be made that these terms indirectly and unspecifically imply mass violence, but that is beside the point. Banning the utterance of political slogans that do not directly call for a specific act of violence is a clear violation of the principle of free speech — a principle that Musk fights so ardently to uphold and defend. As gross as they may be, calls for the violent overthrow of a foreign government and the forced exodus of its people are inherently political speech. Vague, abstract, and indirect calls for violence do not necessarily equate to imminent violence, nor does a non-specific reference to violence nullify the speech’s status as political speech.
Dave Rubin is a highly influential political commentator and member of the quasi-right-wing, anti-woke political movement. Rubin rose to prominence in the mid-2010s by railing against the excesses of the modern Left — namely, the Left’s abandonment of free speech. In a 2022 interview, Rubin opined on his firm belief in free speech, open dialogue, sitting down with those you disagree with, and engaging with individuals and their arguments rather than being consumed by “the emotions of the moment.”
Rubin’s admirable free speech values seem to have gone by the wayside in recent months, though. In response to a report that France had banned all pro-Palestine protests, Rubin tweeted: “Maybe the west has a chance.” Rubin’s endorsement of a nationwide ban on a sweeping, relatively unspecific category of protest stands in stark contrast with his take on the Canadian government's decision to disband the 2022 Ottawa trucker protest: “Peaceful protest now illegal in Canada. Wonder what happens in a society that doesn’t allow its citizens to congregate and air their grievances freely.” Both protests were largely peaceful, both protests were largely composed of people airing their grievances freely, and both protests consisted of messages viewed by their opposition as repugnant. So, what’s the difference? Well, for Rubin, the views expressed at pro-Palestinian protests are: 1) too repugnant, and 2) not aligned with his views.
Others, such as Shapiro and Weiss, have betrayed their own free speech principles by staying silent in the face of mass censorship.
Shapiro and Weiss have been among the most staunch defenders of free speech. Much of their respective fame and fortune are direct results of their laudable crusades against left-wing cancel culture and political censorship online, on college campuses, and elsewhere. Examples abound, though a few stand out:
Since 2015, Shapiro has: testified before Congress on the lack of free speech on college campuses, given hundreds of lectures on college campuses “in the name of free speech,” and ardently cautioned the American body politic against regulating speech based on one’s personal political convictions:
“[We should make] sure that people like me and people with whom I disagree get to speak in places like college campuses, and not [move] toward regulating what speech you find good and what speech you find bad because it’s a really dangerous business. There’s speech I don’t like, there’s speech you don’t like, but if we can’t agree that there’s a difference between speech and violence, we’re not going to be able to have a… free country.”
In the same period of time, Weiss has frequently discussed and written on the importance of free speech and her desire to keep “the spectrum of acceptable opinions as wide as possible.” In her New York Times resignation letter, Weiss cited political tribalism, orthodoxy, a lack of the free exchange of ideas, and de facto necessary self-censorship as her reasons for leaving the publication.
Shapiro and Weiss were right. Political censorship and political thought orthodoxy, enforced on both the governmental and social levels, have made a dramatic comeback in recent years. And yes, apart from a few glaring examples from the Right — such as the “Don’t Say Gay Bill” and the anti-CRT-in-school bills — the vast majority of recent threats to the First Amendment and freedom of speech have come from the Left. Take the serial barring of right-wing speakers on college campuses, repeated calls for the “de-platforming” or “canceling” of right-wing figures, and YouTube’s demonetization and removal of all content deemed to violate its sweeping, nebulous, and “left-leaning” content guidelines, for example. As Shapiro and Weiss have both argued, the stifling of free speech, the free exchange of ideas, and the freedom to express ideas that some may view as offensive, repugnant, or even violent is a threat to the core foundation of our society.
The principle of defending Americans’ right to hold and espouse views we hate did not evaporate on October 7th. So, where are the articles, speeches, and podcast episodes denouncing the censorship, the blacklisting, and the shaming of people for their views on the Israel-Palestine conflict? They do not exist. By and large, Shapiro and Weiss have been silent on the recent war on free speech.
Freedom of Speech Exists Even When We Don’t Want it to
“For if Men are to be precluded from offering their Sentiments on a matter, which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences, that can invite the consideration of Mankind, reason is of no use to us; the freedom of Speech may be taken away, and, dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the Slaughter.”— George Washington, Address to the Officers of the Army.
Two main arguments for the censorship of today’s pro-Palestinian speech have taken hold on the censorial pro-Israel Right. Most prominently: it is violent speech calling for the genocide of the Jewish people.
Granted, some of the people chanting “intifada,” “decolonization,” and other pro-Palestinain slogans surely do want Jews to be violently removed from the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. If actually carried out, a third intifada could result in the deaths of hundreds or thousands of Jewish people. (1,083 Israelis were killed during the Second Intifada, 741 of whom were civilians — not to mention the 6,371 Palestinians killed in retaliation, 1,317 of whom were children). Similarly, assuming that “decolonization” refers to the removal of all Jewish Israelis from Palestine, it is fair to infer that decolonization implies the killing of Jewish Israelis who refuse to voluntarily leave the land.
However, violence, genocide, and ethnic cleansing are illegal in the United States of America. When violence occurs in the U.S. as a result of pro-Palestinian sentiments — as in the case of Paul Kessler, who was killed by a pro-Palestinian protester in Thousand Oaks, CA — the perpetrators of such violence are investigated, charged, and incarcerated.
Further, it is disingenuous to argue that pro-Palestinian slogans are inherently equivalent to physical violence by virtue of their abstract, unspecific, implied calls for violence in a foreign country. As the Supreme Court held in the landmark case Brandenburg v. Ohio, the First Amendment protects speech that advocates for crime, sabotage, and violence so long as the speech does not directly incite or produce “imminent lawless action” and is unlikely “to incite or produce such action.”
Yes, some pro-Palestinian protesters are advocating for violence. But it is crucial to note that their slogans are not calls for imminent lawless action in violation of the aforementioned Brandenburg test, such as “I’m going to drive to Exampleville this afternoon in my car and shoot people at the Exampleville Synagogue at 1234 X Street with my SIG Sauer P365.” Instead, pro-Palestinian speech often takes the form of short, catchy political chants that arguably imply violence in Israel against the Israeli government, military, or civilians.
Saying or typing the words “from the river to the sea,” “intifada,” or “decolonization” is free speech. Signing a letter blaming Israel for 10/7 and justifying acts of terror is free speech. Congregating with your like-minded peers under the banner of “Students for Justice in Palestine” is free speech. And rhetorically supporting Hamas and advocating for the murder of civilians is free speech. You can detest such speech as much as you want, as I do. However, your deep revulsion at these words does not change the fact that they are words deserving of the protections afforded to virtually all words under the First Amendment and the principle of free speech.
The second justification for censorship on the Right goes something like this: censoring pro-Palestinian speech is an act of justice carried out by the victims of cancel culture, censorship, and enforced political orthodoxy — the Right — against the Leftist activist college student perpetrators. Political commentator Bruce Mehlman’s response to the question “what happened to freedom of speech and the republicans being against cancel culture?” serves as a prime example: “well, the folks who were the most aggressive in cancel culture now found themselves accountable for what they had to say.”
It is fair to observe that many of the people now being canceled for their speech in support of Palestine are the same people who canceled people for their unorthodox, right-wing views on domestic political issues. Free speech hypocrisy on the Left in the post-10/7 era is also abundant. However, it is not fair to invoke their past censorial actions — which the Right correctly fought against — as a justification for the use of those same, deplorable tactics in the name of karma. Overt hypocrisy will not lead to a better society, nor will it magically inspire the censorial wing of the Left to adopt the principle of free speech.
An Unfortunate American Tradition: Free Speech For Me But Not For Thee
“I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” — Evelyn Beatrice Hall, illustrating Voltaire’s free speech beliefs.
The “free speech is really important when my views are being censored” phenomenon is nothing new. American politics have long been infested with disingenuous, manipulative, opportunistic actors who uphold and defend the First Amendment when it benefits them only to betray the First Amendment when they no longer need its protection.
Throughout much of the 20th century, the Left was a staunch defender of the First Amendment. Landmark Supreme Court cases such as Gitlow v. NY, Schenk v. US, and Abrams v. US serve as prime examples. In all cases, the United States government cracked down on left-wing speech (anti-war and Marxist activists). As a result, a core belief among the American Left during this period was that freedom of speech, especially the freedom to criticize the U.S. Government and its foreign policy, was of utmost importance. However, much of the Left changed its tune in the 21st century, with many on the Left calling for censorship of views they disagree with/deem to be harmful. Now, we see the same trend playing out on the Right in regards to pro-Palestinian speech.
Freedom of speech is important regardless of whether or not you agree with the speech that is being protected. Take the defense lawyers in the aforementioned Brandenburg case, for example:
Clarence Brandenburg was a Ku Klux Klan leader who gave a series of public speeches calling for “revengeance” against blacks and Jews and for the forced relocation of black Americans to Africa and Jewish Americans to Israel. Brandenburg was defended in court by two volunteer ACLU lawyers named Eleanor Holmes Norton, who is black, and Allen Brown, who is Jewish. When asked about her work defending Brandenburg and other prominent racists’ First Amendment rights in court, Norton said:
“I defended the First Amendment, and you seldom get to defend the First Amendment by defending people you like… You don’t know whether the First Amendment is alive and well until it is tested by people with despicable ideas.”
Similarly, when applauded for his “public service” in defending “this indigent defendant,” Allen Brown responded by invoking the above quote by Evelyn Beatrice Hall:
“I should perhaps state for sake of the record that counsel for the appellant in no way agrees with any of the appellant’s positions. I will however take the Voltarian position in relation to the appellant.”
Norton and Brown were principled. They believed in the principle of free speech so strongly that they took to the stand to defend a Klansman’s right to call for violence against them. They did so not because they liked his opinions or wanted people to follow his genocidal directions. They defended Brandenburg because they believed in a society where all ideas and all speech, regardless of content, are allowed to be expressed.
A Principle Worth Being Principled About
“He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression, for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." — Thomas Paine
Norton and Brown knew that the principle of free speech would crumble and die if some views — indeed, if evil views — were allowed to be censored and punished. Why? Because someone must decide what constitutes an evil view worthy of silencing, and that someone is not guaranteed to be in alignment with your views on politics and morality.
Of course, the overwhelmingly vast majority of elected officials in recent memory agree that Brandenburg’s views were abhorrent and would support censoring him. But what happens when the levers of censorship and political power land in the hands of those who agree with Brandenburg? Likely, messages about racial equality, racial justice, and the like would be deemed evil and worthy of censorship. And thus, the endless cycle of “free speech for me but not thee” spins on.
The First Amendment and the principle of free speech are rendered null and void if the government can pick and choose the ideas worthy of protection or punishment. It’s easy to call for the censorship of your enemies when your ideas predominate in the halls of power. But your censorial joy will evaporate when those in power find your views reprehensible. As Justice Robert Jackson wrote in Korematsu v. US, once a principle that justifies censorship, discrimination, or other such erosions of liberty is enshrined in the mind and in the law, “the principle then lies about like a loaded weapon, ready for the hand of any authority that can bring forward a plausible claim of an urgent need.”
I am Jewish, and proudly so. I also disagree with many of the views espoused by today’s pro-Palestine movement. But that does not matter. If we want a free and open society, if we want to lessen political polarization and division, if we want the best and most moral ideas to eventually win in the marketplace of ideas, if we want the ability to speak truth to power, and if we want a chance at solving the conflict in the Middle East, then we must allow all ideas to see the light of day. It does not matter if we disagree with them. It does not matter if they fly in the face of our most cherished and deeply-held beliefs. Speech is speech, and it is beholden on all of us to debate and defeat the ideas we disagree with rather than barring them from the public forum.