1. The Fox News headline reads, “Democrat blocks Hawley’s resolution to condemn antisemitism on college campuses.” That’s not exactly fair and balanced. The gist of the headline, of course, is to make it sound like Democrats enable anti-Semitism. BAD Fox! BAD. That Democrat is Maryland Senator Chris Van Holland, and he wasn’t blocking a generic Senate resolution condemning anti-Semitism, which like a resolution condemning police brutality, would be virtue-signaling with little significance. This was something else.
Conservative Republican Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri called upon all of his colleagues to give unanimous consent on his resolution condemning Hamas, pledging support of Israel, confirming that nation’s “right to exits” and condemning the pro-Palestinian statements and demonstrations by student groups on college campuses. It is clear, however, that what the resolution was really targeting are students. Hawley’s resolution begins with the usual list of “Whereas’s,” with nine of the thirteen referring directly to student reaction to the October 7 Hamas attack.
“Almost as disturbing as the facts of these terrible attacks themselves is the response of some people in this country. On our college campuses in this country who promptly took to the streets, to the courtyards of these campuses, the airwaves, to broadcast their support for this genocide against the people of Israel,”said Hawley on the floor introducing his resolution. “Students at Ohio State praised the heroic resistance in Gaza. Heroic — it’s now heroic to massacre Jews in cold blood. It’s now heroic to try and carry out a genocide against Jewish people. Calling for the death of Jewish people is not just another opinion. Calling for the genocide, celebrating the genocide of Jewish babies is not just another opinion. Celebrating the assaults on Jewish people in this country is not just another opinion, and the Senate should be clear and stand with moral clarity and say ‘this is wrong.'”
Ringing words, except that the same kind of argument could be raised against students opposing the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision or in support of affirmative action. Hawley’s resolution should give pause to anyone under the delusion that only Democrats are hostile to free speech and expression when it doesn’t please them.
The U.S. Senate must not use its power and influence to declare peaceful demonstrations by college students or any other group wrongful, or even to condemn any citizen’s opinion on international law or any other matters. Hawley and any other elected official can argue against such position, but asking for a house of Congress to officially declare dissenting college students as supporting genocide—a characterization, not a fact—chills free speech, dissent and the freedom of assembly. The resolution is unethical.
“What you are doing here is smearing all of the students who engage in these protests, and that is just wrong,” Van Hollen said on the Senate floor as he made unanimous consent impossible. “There are student groups that may have legitimate concerns about the loss of innocent civilian life in Gaza.”
A more eloquent and pointed rebuttal of the ominous proposal would have been preferable, but never mind: Van Hollen was right.
2. An even more troubling attack on free speech, expression and thought is bubbling up from the GOP ooze in both houses of Congress.
Republican Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina, who is running for President, introduced The Stop Antisemitism on College Campuses bill to ban any federal student aid from going to colleges and universities that “authorize, facilitate, provide funding for, or otherwise support
any event promoting Anti-Semitism on campus.” The bill aims to keep such schools from eligibility for Title IV funds, which includes federal student aid. In the 2020-2021 school year, the total Title IV funding dispersed by the federal government was roughly $125 billion.
Who is going to define “anti-Semitism”? What does “facilitate”? “Support”? It’s an unconstitutional law, void for vagueness, aimed at controlling thought and political content. “We must not only call out this hate but crush it wherever it rears its ugly head. If these schools don’t change their ways, my legislation hits them where it hurts – their pocketbooks,” Senator Scott said, doing his best Joe McCarthy imitation. Senators Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Katie Britt (R-Ala.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.) and James Lankford (R-Okla.) joined Scott in pushing this sinister legislation, and you can be sure that most conservative commentators will be cheering along, because it promotes good censorship and thought control. Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.) introduced companion legislation in the House, saying that the “rising antisemitism on college campuses is alarming and must be confronted.”
Anti-semitism is thought. In 2023 America, Big Brother is bi-partisan.
Ethics Alarms 
Or, just maybe, the right is learning to use the left’s tactics against it. Honestly, after 2020, I’m ready to place some reasonable limits on the right to assemble. The left acts like the various rights in the Bill of Rights are revocable benefits that are extended only for the duration of citizens’ good behavior, or toys that can be taken away by them, the parents, for any reason or no reason. Maybe it’s time they got a taste of their own medicine. The right to assemble and to peaceably protest was abused in 2020, and maybe it’s time the abusers got it taken away.
I understand that impulse, and the difficulty of fighting “by the rules” against an adversary that recognizes none, but I see great danger in that way of thinking. History is full of examples of the oppressed rising up and giving the oppressors a taste of their own medicine. Almost always this leads to the oppressedbecoming the oppressors, until the tide changes and roles reverse once again. Typically, the only “lesson” learned by the newly deposed faction is to never again lose their grip on the reins of power. The insight to establish universal rights, limit the power of government, and ensure regular peaceful transfers of power seems to be a rare gift from the European Enlightenment. I would not soon cast it aside in favor of the old system of tit-for-tat reprisals.
I’m all about free speech. We either all have it or none of us do. However, many of the most hateful voices are from people who are here as guests. The American people should be under no obligation to have to put up with the hate those folks brought with them from wherever they came from. If they want to protest the US’ support of Israel, send them home and they can protest there. Not on our streets and campuses.
If they protested there they would be shot dead or beheaded. That’s why they do it here, although they want to make here a little more like a there where they are in charge.
SCOTUS has consistently ruled that visitors, aliens and even illegal aliens still have the same rights while here as an other citizen. And I think that has to be the case.
EXCEPT voting. Only American citizens should have that right.
How do we end up with congressional districts that elect Ilan Omar and Rashida Tlaib? Something’s out of whack.
These are gerrymandered community districts that allow, for example, Somali immigrants to elect a narrow interest rep.
But in their right mind does that? And why? Are those voters citizens?
who
I’m not entirely sure I would call what these people are doing peaceful protest. Advocating for terrorism, advocating for the rape and murder of women, advocating for the beheading of babies and burning children alive is not peaceful. That said, I don’t trust the government to identify the line between peaceful and threatening. The first amendment is too important to let idiots from the government muck with it.
Let them demonstrate. That will allow the world to know their true character, thus allowing the market to impose penalties.
“There are student groups that may have legitimate concerns about the loss of innocent civilian life in Gaza.”
Uh, Chris, where were you when (people probably still are) Democrats took almost identical words from Trump about the demonstrators in Charlottesville and twisted them around? Asshole.
– “Ringing words, except that the same kind of argument could be raised against students opposing the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision or in support of affirmative action. Hawley’s resolution should give pause to anyone under the delusion that only Democrats are hostile to free speech and expression when it doesn’t please them.” –
No, I really don’t think so. There’s a HUGE difference in that no even-partially-sentient being is calling for the genocidal elimination of abortion advocates simply because they’re abortion advocates, nor is anyone calling for the adherents of affirmative action to be genocidally eliminated. Neither side of either issue has held mass demonstrations in support of or justified the mass murder and torture of their opponents.
Anybody supporting Hamas should be made aware of exactly what it is they are supporting, and I don’t care what august body points it out, whether the local chamber of commerce or the US Senate. And frankly, Van Hollen is gaslighting. He knows, or should know, right and wrong, and that when it comes to the Jews, there is NO OTHER COMPARABLE. Don’t give me the Serbs and Croats, or the Tutsis and Hutus, because there weren’t mass demonstrations across continents of the globe singling out the oppressors as justified. It doesn’t happen to anyone but the Jews.
– “The U.S. Senate must not use its power and influence to declare peaceful demonstrations by college students or any other group wrongful, or even to condemn any citizen’s opinion on international law or any other matters.” –
This feels absurd on it’s face. A governing body is in charge of promoting the safety and security of it citizenry, including the minority, and passes laws to ensure the same. We can disagree about the nature of “Hate Crimes” but the upshot is that if people are free to say and think whatever they want, why are there hate crime laws on the books? That’s legislation that allows additional penalties because of what someone thinks. And that can be invoked anytime a favored racial group is attacked, no matter how casually or deeply one has “thought” it. And it’s never a two way street. So the US Congress has already used it’s power and influence to declare thought wrongful. If we can legislate that, I have NO problem with our elected body making a simple statement of fact.
– “Hawley and any other elected official can argue against such position, but asking for a house of Congress to officially declare dissenting college students as supporting genocide—a characterization, not a fact—“ –
Again, I beg to differ. From the resolution:
‘Whereas students at Harvard University wrote that they ‘‘hold the Israeli regime entirely responsible for all unfolding violence’’;’
and,
‘Whereas the President of the Student Bar Association of New York University School of Law wrote ‘‘…. Israel bears full responsibility for this tremendous loss of life’’;’
This is the equivalent of – Yeah, I raped her, but she was asking for it.
‘Whereas the University of North Carolina chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine claimed ‘‘… This includes violence’’;’
and
‘Whereas the University of Virginia chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine declared that the mass murder of civilians was ‘‘an unprecedented feat for the 21st century’’…’.
I’d argue the rest are incitements to violence, most especially because this does not happen to any other group but the Jews. No other people is subject to this.
Given the above, how Van Hollen can call it “smearing” the students when, at a minimum, the examples I’ve listed are blatant and willing support for violence and genocide. I guess it isn’t what it is.
As to the actual legislation listed later, I’ll agree in a bare naked sense that Big Brother is bi-partisan, but I’ll ask what I often ask in these instances: Shall we be ethical in the extreme as we march to the gulags? I don’t think that’s the ethical response, either, so perhaps it ethics zugzwang.
I don’t follow. Because there is hate crime legislation, we should accept treating opinions as a crime? At least hate crime legislation requires an illegal act first, before the opinion is taken into consideration. A group saying that Palestinians were justified in killing Israelis is an ignorant and inflammatory opinion, but it’s an opinion nonetheless. The distinction made here is crucial: Congress can condemn anti-Semitism, but it must not single out citizens they deem guilty of anti-Semitism.That’s an abuse of power, and makes people virtual outlaws in their own country.
I think these people should be given the absolute right to expose themselves for what they are. Don’t silence them. Let them advocate for all the savagery they can gin up. This is a good thing. See, e.g., David Mamet’s piece: https://unherd.com/2023/10/how-the-democrats-betrayed-the-jews/
Who better to indict these people than themselves? Give them microphones and bullhorns and lots of fora. Take it away, Jew haters of the world. Unite. Show us your true colors!
I don’t like it as it is (and I’m disappointed in my senator Lankford), but there’s a nugget here – the left loves to use federal aid as the carrot to enforce its agenda in higher ed. Remember the Title IX Dear Colleague letters from the Obama administration? Or the recent interpretation of “discrimination on the basis of sex” to now include gender identity and its 600 flavors?
Theoretically, title VI already protects a hostile environment based on race on college campuses, but as we’ve seen, many Democrats don’t consider Jews as a race to be protected and count them as “white oppressors.” What would the response be if the KKK was given the same support on campuses as Hamas has?
If we’re free to think as we wish, then “at least an illegal act was committed first” is immaterial. It’s no argument at all.
Hawley’s document is a resolution, not a law. If it were Democrats, they’d be introducing a law making them criminals (or using existing to do so) and attempting to jail them; see DJT.
Gang affiliation is legal, too, but governments call them out for the violence they perpetrate. Who do you suppose killed the Jewish leader in Detroit (https://www.jta.org/2023/10/21/obituaries/samantha-woll-detroit-synagogue-president-stabbed-to-death-outside-her-home)? Well, those protesters aren’t responsible, you say.
Nor did those crazy kids foster an accepting environment for violence against Jews, that’s for sure.
Or, (did) they?
https://legalinsurrection.com/2023/10/minneapolis-city-council-candidate-rioters-terrorize-old-man-in-car-at-pro-palestine-rally/
How far is “Free Palestine” from MS13? Or perhaps Sinn Fein from the IRA? I don’t think we should wait that long. The government has an interest in attempting to secure the peace of (especially this infinitesimally small part) it’s citizrenry. Every time this happens, attacks on Jews ramp.
If Hawley called the individuals out by name, without investigation or indictment, that would be bad, and I would definitely agree since I’ve had my rights abridged without due process (though the government would assert otherwise).
I no longer give government the benefit of the doubt, so I’m in your camp, but government also has the power to use the bully pulpit without abridging anyone’s individual right, and this is that case.
It is right to do so.
“If we’re free to think as we wish, then “at least an illegal act was committed first” is immaterial. It’s no argument at all.”
I don’t get that, either. The crime part of a hate crime is not the hate. There is literally no act that is otherwise legal that becomes illegal because of a motivation. That’s the logic used to allow hate crime legislation—It is weak, because it still punishes thought by enhancing punishment for an already criminal act, but nonetheless, even with hate crimes, the thought isn’t illegal. A main body of the Government declaring that specific individuals are “wrong” for believing something and stating that belief isn’t a law, just as the Executive Branch saying, “We SUGGEST” you ban X’s social media post. But it’s still too close, and it’s still an abuse of power. Congress can condemn a position, but when it condemns a citizen by name, or a group bu name, then it has crossed the line.
Nazi’s in Skokie, students in 2023, J6 protesters, one of these things is not like the others. Say any damn thing you please, I gave 13 years of my life to protect the ability of idiots to be idiots and for the ability to speak your mind. Don’t conflate the speech with the acts that destroyed cities in 2020 and jailed 100s in DC.
I’m disappointed but not surprised to see the reaction from the right on this. Too many people want to use the power of government as a cudgel against those they disagree with. This will only result in more abuse in the future, and the people wielding the cudgel may not be ones who agree with you. I don’t expect much from Republican senators, especially Josh Hawley, but I hoped the commenters here at least would understand why an eye for an eye is a bad plan. Supporting the government in the restriction of speech is only going to bring tyranny.
I was listening to Sean Hannity today; not really a fan but he has the 3-6pm time slot so there is nothing else on the way home from work. Anyway, he had Marco Rubio on as a guest. They are talking about the situation in Israel and how disgraceful it is that all of these people in America support Hamas. So far, so good. Then Rubio states that a lot of these university protestors are guest lecturers or foreign students here on a visa. And they should have their visa removed if they support terrorists! There is no right in the Constitution to have a visa, after all. It has nothing to do with the first amendment or free speech.
Yes, a US Senator actually said that the government revoking peoples’ visas because of their speech has nothing to do with the first amendment. Apparently he isn’t aware that non-citizens also have rights in the US. Legalities aside, I think in the case of foreign nationals doing anything to them that can’t be done to citizens is unethical. It is wrong for the government to punish citizens for speech, and it should be so for visa holders as well (pretend for a moment that going from a visa holder to an illegal immigrant is some kind of disadvantage). The only comparable situation would be if citizens could be exiled for supporting Hamas.
Of course, the Bill of Rights doesn’t actually work as some sort of magical right-granting legal device. The Federal government is only supposed to have those powers specifically delegated to it in the Constitution. Any other exercise of power is de facto illegal. The first ten amendments were added as a sort of extra reminder that the government can not and should not infringe on the listed rights because they were so important to a free society. The very first right in this list is that of speech for a reason.
Sadly, a lot of people don’t want a limited government that has little power. They want a big, strong government that can shove their beliefs down the throat of others. That is a big reason everything in this country is so dysfunctional today. Yes, I know the people supporting rape and child murder and terrorists are disgusting. But I don’t think anyone here at EA would support Chuck Schumer writing a resolution about how people who publicly support the Jan 6th protestors are traitors and insurrectionists and the government officially condemns them. What the GOP Senators want to do here is little different. Don’t let bias make you stupid.
– “But I don’t think anyone here at EA would support Chuck Schumer writing a resolution about how people who publicly support the Jan 6th protestors are traitors and insurrectionists and the government officially condemns them. What the GOP Senators want to do here is little different. Don’t let bias make you stupid.” –
Sure I would. It’s non-binding, and it tells me what the members who voted for it think. I wouldn’t agree with it, but I have no problem if Schumer writes it up, because it’s not legislative, it’s not binding, it’s an opinion that members who vote for it agree with. Constituents see it, and vote them in or vote them out the next election (occasionally…).
And that IS what the Democrats call the J6 group, regardless of the fact that some of them were let in by the Capitol police, and regardless of any resolution offered and passed (or not). And they’ve done it on all the morning news shows since then, whenever the topic comes up. Their resolution is informal and ongoing. Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, and they (the Democrats) have the FBI and all the other 3 letter agencies doing everything to further cow the more timid among us in to submission to their agenda. Trump is literally Hitler, they’ve impeached him twice, charged him on what nearly every legal expert says are bullshit charges at the STATE level because they couldn’t get him federally, nevermind them going after ANYBODY who worked under him.
Hillary says we need sent to a re-education camp (no, she’s not IN government, but how naïve are we to think that there aren’t dozens and hundreds that ARE in government who think that way – and thousands if you count the unelected bodies). Who needs a resolution? Typical of the left, they’re not going to openly state what they’re doing, they need plausible deniability – except that for those paying attention, it isn’t plausible, and it isn’t deniable.
Put that resolution out there, lets have a scrap of a debate about it, and keep it going. This idea of “oh, well, what if the left did that to us?” is just stupid, they’re doing it day in and day out in every way imaginable. EGREGIOUSLY so.
Eye for an eye? Are you kidding? We on the right would love an eye for an eye – right now all we get is poked in the eye and say thank you, may I have another.