Recently, I was at a lunch with several academically-oriented women when I disagreed with one of them. They all looked uncomfortable. I looked at her and said, "I can disagree with you and still be your friend." A moment of silence and then, laughter. I had cross the barrier. Now, I refuse to get upset when reading or hearing something I don't agree with and it's working. With enough practice, it doesn't bother me anymore. If you learn to express without trying to convert anyone, it is true free speech. It's attempting to convert someone that is oppressive, bullying, and almost violent. That's what the university library full of Palestinian activists were doing, pushing leaflets on people and turning nasty when they found out that someone didn't agree with them. Free speech is just that. Open, free and non-oppressive.
Monica, I always feel so clearheaded, hopeful, and inspired after reading one of your articles, and this one is no exception. Thank you so much for everything you do to bring light, clarity, and wisdom to today's most pressing conversations and problems. So grateful for you and that you landed at FAIR!
Great Job Monica! Once again you hit the nail on the head! There is no, and will never be, "appropriate “context” to call for the genocide of black Americans or transgender Americans" So why would the first amendment permit to call for the genocide of ANY group? I really want to help your country not become a cuntry, Monica. Here what comes to me, fresh and raw: "if it is illegal to COMMIT a crime, then it is ILLEGAL to CALL for a what would be a CRIME if performed", or "to make the apology of what would be a crime if performed"... Period. The first amendment would not suffer from this precision (my guess). If needed, why not push for a new amendment that tell the difference between legal "hate speech", and "CALL to commit a crime", or "apology of a proven crime"? Lastly, and sadly, since October 7, the "slavish adherence" to legal considerations with no regard to morality is not limited to leaders in higher education, and this started long before october 7th IMHO: a vast number of citizens gleefuly approve of the worse, because of their righteousness, and their entitlement to limitless freedom incited them to give way to their desperate, devilish, craving for the Apocalypse. Give them hope, be it the 51st state of the US, or the Continental Regency, or the equatorial "Sea Belt". Feed them hope. It is never too late.
There's a fine line between not being able to call for a crime to be committed, and not being able to argue that something legally a crime is not in fact a crime (say, late term abortion in many jurisdictions, or, not so long ago, homosexuality). Arguing for a crime to be committed is not the same as committing it, and criminal izing the argument is stepping onto a very slippery slope.
I don't imagine a law that would legalize, murder, rape, and genocide. So telling that murder, rape and genocides are maybe no crime and should be allowed is perfectly eligible to public censorship, while when some other things once considered "crimes", as abortion and homosexuality, are involved, in no way their legalization implied the legalization of rape, murder and genocide. As long as there is a minimal consensus on the matter of rape, murder and genocide, we can set some limits.
There is also a linguistic problem. In French anything other than rape murder and genocide, is not called "crime", but misdemeanor or the lower equivalents (delictuous acts, contraventions, infringments etc..,). In the US you have a tendency to call anything that is unlawful "crime". Even maybe picking your nose is a "crime". LOL
Arguing for a crime to be committed is not the same as committing it, for sure, but it should be at least a misdemeanor or something equivalent. Public order and decency already condemn disorderly conduct, and often rightfully so. Arguing for a crime to be committed, is to the least, disorderly conduct.
I want to see if this comment gets published before I abandon posting it.
Recently, I was at a lunch with several academically-oriented women when I disagreed with one of them. They all looked uncomfortable. I looked at her and said, "I can disagree with you and still be your friend." A moment of silence and then, laughter. I had cross the barrier. Now, I refuse to get upset when reading or hearing something I don't agree with and it's working. With enough practice, it doesn't bother me anymore. If you learn to express without trying to convert anyone, it is true free speech. It's attempting to convert someone that is oppressive, bullying, and almost violent. That's what the university library full of Palestinian activists were doing, pushing leaflets on people and turning nasty when they found out that someone didn't agree with them. Free speech is just that. Open, free and non-oppressive.
“If you learn to express without trying to convert anyone, it is true free speech.”
Brilliantly said, Vicki. This is truly the First Amendment as our Founders intended. Thank you for sharing.
There is no more important mission than FAIR's nor anyone better able to lead it than you, Monica! We face challenges but America is up to them.
Monica, I always feel so clearheaded, hopeful, and inspired after reading one of your articles, and this one is no exception. Thank you so much for everything you do to bring light, clarity, and wisdom to today's most pressing conversations and problems. So grateful for you and that you landed at FAIR!
Brava, Monica!
Great Job Monica! Once again you hit the nail on the head! There is no, and will never be, "appropriate “context” to call for the genocide of black Americans or transgender Americans" So why would the first amendment permit to call for the genocide of ANY group? I really want to help your country not become a cuntry, Monica. Here what comes to me, fresh and raw: "if it is illegal to COMMIT a crime, then it is ILLEGAL to CALL for a what would be a CRIME if performed", or "to make the apology of what would be a crime if performed"... Period. The first amendment would not suffer from this precision (my guess). If needed, why not push for a new amendment that tell the difference between legal "hate speech", and "CALL to commit a crime", or "apology of a proven crime"? Lastly, and sadly, since October 7, the "slavish adherence" to legal considerations with no regard to morality is not limited to leaders in higher education, and this started long before october 7th IMHO: a vast number of citizens gleefuly approve of the worse, because of their righteousness, and their entitlement to limitless freedom incited them to give way to their desperate, devilish, craving for the Apocalypse. Give them hope, be it the 51st state of the US, or the Continental Regency, or the equatorial "Sea Belt". Feed them hope. It is never too late.
There's a fine line between not being able to call for a crime to be committed, and not being able to argue that something legally a crime is not in fact a crime (say, late term abortion in many jurisdictions, or, not so long ago, homosexuality). Arguing for a crime to be committed is not the same as committing it, and criminal izing the argument is stepping onto a very slippery slope.
I don't imagine a law that would legalize, murder, rape, and genocide. So telling that murder, rape and genocides are maybe no crime and should be allowed is perfectly eligible to public censorship, while when some other things once considered "crimes", as abortion and homosexuality, are involved, in no way their legalization implied the legalization of rape, murder and genocide. As long as there is a minimal consensus on the matter of rape, murder and genocide, we can set some limits.
There is also a linguistic problem. In French anything other than rape murder and genocide, is not called "crime", but misdemeanor or the lower equivalents (delictuous acts, contraventions, infringments etc..,). In the US you have a tendency to call anything that is unlawful "crime". Even maybe picking your nose is a "crime". LOL
Arguing for a crime to be committed is not the same as committing it, for sure, but it should be at least a misdemeanor or something equivalent. Public order and decency already condemn disorderly conduct, and often rightfully so. Arguing for a crime to be committed, is to the least, disorderly conduct.