An easy test of whether or not you actually hold liberal values is if you find yourself standing up for people you dislike. If you do not have a history of strange bedfellows, it is unlikely that you hold liberal values. Today, I stand for the college students protesting on behalf of the Palestinians. I do not have strong opinions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and I look at these protestors and recognize them for the people who have been screaming in my face for the past 8 years; calling me a monster for opinions I hold, begging the government, big business, and big tech to punish me. I have seen them vandalize, trespass, and praise the violent actions of Hamas. I stand for them all the same.

It is plain to see that police actions taken against these protestors have been disproportionate to the protests themselves. Hundreds of jackbooted NYPD police officers were deployed to break up the protests in Hamilton Hall at Columbia University. Legislative action has been proposed as well in the form of restrictions on anti-Semitic speech as an addendum to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. One of the most emblematic examples of the anti-liberal response to opposition to Israel comes from Stanford University. On April 30^th, they published a message indicating that they had reached out to the FBI in regards to an individual “who appeared to be wearing a green headband similar to those worn by members of Hamas”. Based on this response, Stanford believes that some articles of clothing should be illegal to wear because they demonstrate beliefs that Stanford thinks it should be illegal to hold.

In 1977, the ACLU (an organization not in small part populated by Jewish lawyers) took the case of a neo-Nazi group that was being prevented from holding demonstrations in Chicago and the suburbs surrounding (see: Skokie Affair). The ACLU fought and won the neo-Nazi’s the right to demonstrate, arguing that their rights to freedom of speech and assembly were being infringed. In the 47 years since this historic victory for liberalism, Americans in large seem to have forgotten what it means to hold liberal principles (including the ACLU, sadly. Note their absence in the present). Freedom of speech is most often about defending speech/belief that you find abhorrent. If you need help understanding why, just imagine the political figure you find to be the most dangerous and then give them the right to censor speech. When the speech/beliefs you hold dear becomes unpopular, be glad you stood up to protect the First Amendment.

Use this moment to realize what the attacks on free speech look like.

Hate speech is not special and should be treated no differently than other speech (under the law). While I do not encourage it, you are allowed to hate people or groups of people for whatever reasons you would like. The only thing scarier than a society where people are allowed to hate is one in which hate is illegal. Imagine if it was illegal to hate your president or government. Oh wait…

In late 2022, the DHS released plans to police speech and outlined its three focuses:

• Misinformation – false information spread unintentionally. (who gets to determine what is false?)
• Disinformation – false information spread intentionally. (see above question)
• Malinformation – factual information shared, typically out of context, with harmful intent that allegedly threatens U.S. interests. (You will notice that malinformation is factual information that is inconvenient for the government. Sounds quite a bit like the DHS outlined plans to police hating your government)

“Speech is violence”. Nope. Speech is the alternative to violence and if speech couldn’t hurt you, it would not be a suitable alternative ergo there would be more violence. “The first human who hurled an insult instead of a stone was the founder of civilization”.

Stand for the protestors and stand against the totalitarians who want to take away your rights and the partisans who have forgotten that we should all be treated equally under the law.