A famous saying goes like this:
“You can't shout fire in a crowded theater.” And there is an equally famous
saying that can be paraphrased like this: “The cure to the ills of free speech
is more free speech”.
These are the two extreme
positions delineating the full spectrum along which free speech is usually
practiced. But the reality is that things are a lot more complicated than they
seem at first glance. That's because we bump into a problem when we look for a
point on the spectrum that may constitute the compromise position to satisfy
the largest number of people.
The problem is that most
individuals have not one preferred point on the spectrum for tolerating all
kinds of speeches. What they have is one point for one type of speech, another
point for another type of speech … and still more points for more types of
speeches. In fact, when it comes to tolerating the speeches of others, each of
us will be found to sit anywhere and everywhere on the spectrum. We're all over
the map, as the saying goes.
For example, a professor of
economics may welcome … may even encourage his students to write papers
expressing opinions that fall anywhere on the spectrum between the hard Right
and the hard Left. By contrast, the editor of a right-wing publication will
accept submissions that go only so far in expressing left-wing principles. And
of course, the editor at a left-wing publication will have
opposite views.
And that's not the only
complication you'll encounter because more can happen. For example, if you
identify and select the ten most open minded professors of economics in the
nation, and ask each of them where on the spectrum they would place their point
of tolerance regarding religious speech or political speech or pornography,
you'll discover that you need to set up three spectrums for each professor. And
you'll find that the same thing applies with the editors.
So now you can imagine how many
unseen spectrums exist in a nation that's made of millions of people, each
having a distinct preference for where on the spectrum they would place each of
a multitude of subjects. How then, do you satisfy all these cases? The answer
is that there isn't a one-size fits all response. What we must do is treat each
case on its own merit.
That's what makes the discussion
about free speech a difficult subject. But there are times when someone will
make a claim that is so trivial on its face; you'll have no trouble dismissing
it summarily. An example of this is an article that came under the title:
“Treat BDS as the campus scourge it is” and the subtitle: “The push to vilify
Israel too often feeds anti-Semitic rhetoric and conduct.” It was written by
Jack Rosen who is President of the American Jewish Congress, and published on
May 3, 2018 in the New York Daily News.
You'll find that Rosen did not
defend free speech as a worthy concept in its own right. What he did was
exercise his right to speak freely, and used the privilege to attack the right
of others to exercise their right to speak freely. To explain his logic, he
rambled a few hundred words that can be condensed as follows:
“It is time to redefine
anti-Semitism. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's definition
sets a precedent for what constitutes anti-Semitism. The definition
characterizes as anti-Semitic the BDS rhetoric. The latter focuses its
criticism on Zionism, an idea it defines as a movement which seeks to take over
control of land and resources and forcibly remove Palestinians. The American
Jewish Congress launched a campaign on college campuses, collating video
testimonies from students that experienced anti-Semitism from BDS activists.
Activists at Columbia University argued that the 1948 declaration of statehood
represented an ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. BDS rhetoric has an undue
influence on young minds, shaping the ideology of our future leaders. Yet the
response from university administrators has been underwhelming, claiming that
the rhetoric did not pose a danger and didn't constitute incitement”.
What we
see here is the typical Jewish response to competition. The Jews will attack
someone behind their back or will attack those that cannot defend themselves or
will run to the authorities and ask for help if their intended victims prove
they can defend themselves.
As seen
in the Jack Rosen article, the Jews pitted themselves against the proponents of
the BDS movement and lost the argument. They tried to redefine free speech by
redefining anti-Semitism and got nowhere. They hired professional media
operators who made video clips to persuade the university administrators that
speech exercised by others was not free speech, but were turned back.