Hate speech is being debated again, and I think I can clarify this.
It is profoundly American and protected by our constitution to criticize our government. The United States Constitution gives it the highest protection. The freedoms outlined are as follows:
- Habeus corpus
- Ban on bills of attainder
- Ban on ex post facto application of laws
- Prohibition of a state religion
- Freedom of religion
- Freedom of speech.
It is literally the sixth right clearly outlined in the Constitution. When not in violation of other rights, the Supreme Court has long upheld a very broad definition of this right regardless of political party.
There are limitations on free speech, of course. They are well outlined in this Wikipedia article.
Criticizing our government, or any foreign government, is explicitly protected by the First Amendment.
Brandenburg v. Ohio is the key case “holding that government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation.”
If clear hate speech done by a member of the KKK is protected speech, then surely advocating for the 1949 ceasefire borders and Geneva protocols is protected by the First Amendment.
We also have the “clear and present danger” test, which was decided in Whitney v. California. There is no clear and present danger in criticizing a government for violating the Geneva Protocols.
We have the right to criticize our government as long as we do not present a clear and present danger. We also have the right to criticize other governments with that restriction. We absolutely have an undeniable right to petition our government when we believe our government’s actions violate morality or, god forbid, international human rights law.
As outlined via treaty, advocating for the enforcement of the 1949 borders falls within the rights outlined by the courts and the Constitution.
Given how Israeli policy has violated the 1949 borders for many decades with the construction of settlements in violation of this international treaty, which Israel is a party to, supporting the 1949 borders is a criticism of current Israeli policy.
This criticism of Israel is a criticism of their foreign policy and is, according to the IHRA’s definition of anti-semitism, on par with advocating for the Holocaust. I disagree with this definition; it is not calling for anyone to be genocided; it is merely advocating for Israel to follow international law, including laws that were written in the aftermath of the Holocaust. There is a clear difference between advocating for the slaughter of civilians and advocating for a government to respect international law.
The law passed today by the Supreme Court is in clear violation of the test the Supreme Court created in Whitney v. California, and the definition of anti-semitism, which defines criticizing the government of Israel as anti-semitic speech, will not pass constitutional muster and is profoundly anti-American.
Suppose the Supreme Court upholds this abhorrent law. In that case, we will be in a situation where obvious hate speech, which Clarence Brandenburg spouted, is seen as legal, but advocating for Israel to not attack civilians and respect international law will be seen as hate speech. It couldn’t possibly be more backward. Clarence Brandenburg was a terrorist. Petitioning our government to uphold international law is in no way worse than what he did.
This bill must be filibustered in the Senate. It is profoundly anti-American.
Read the ACLU’s statement on this unconstitutional bill on their website here: https://www.aclu.org/documents/aclu-urges-congress-to-oppose-anti-semitism-awareness-act