DoubleTapper
DoubleTapper@gmail.com
DoubleTapper, blogging on Guns Politics Defense from Israel

Ms. Clement,

You were quoted as saying:

“There’s such a thing as free speech, but when you post things anonymously and make others feel threatened, that’s not free speech.”

Simply put, you’re 100% wrong. Not because I say so, but because the Supreme Court of the United States says so.

The Supreme Court of the United States in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission said:

Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.

I think it could be easily and persuasively argued that on a campus like yours that essentially endorses the Palestinian point of view (instigating a police investigation of their critics), expressing a view critical of the Palestinian agenda is indeed unpopular. In fact, that the University instigated such an investigation shows the wisdom of the SCOTUS ruling because your university indeed tried to retaliate against those “unpopular individuals.” That the Muslim Student Association has demonstrable ties to violent Muslim jihadis makes a compelling case for anonymity when criticizing them.

McIntyre was a relatively narrow ruling focusing on political speech. A broader 1960 ruling, Talley v California

overturned an ordinance in L.A. that banned anonymous speech in the form of pamphlets, political and non-political alike. Justice Black, the author of the opinion, said, “There can be no doubt that such an identification requirement would tend to restrict freedom to distribute information and thereby freedom of expression.”

It’s pretty clear that the University’s actions to investigate the publishers of the fliers that you find to make Muslims “feel threatened” runs afoul of Talley. One might think that the intended victims of the people pictured on the poster have a more immediate sense of danger, but what are a few more dead Jews to folks in the ivory towers of academe?

Since you instigated a criminal investigation, perhaps you should be reminded of another bedrock constitutional right, that people are innocent until proven guilty and that criminal intent must be proven. As such, the fact that some others “feel threatened” has no bearing on free speech rights. The intent of the speaker is critical, not the subjective reaction of those who hear/read the speech. I’m sure there are plenty of Jewish and other students on campus who “feel threatened” by the Muslim Students Association, what is effectively the campus organization of the Muslim Brotherhood, but I strongly doubt your office would be sensitive to their fear.

I wonder, before you expressed yourself about the limits to free speech, did you even bother to see if anonymous free speech is protected? It took me less than a minute to find those SCOTUS rulings. One would hope that a university would be more devoted to free inquiry and free speech, but at the very least you should have checked what the law really is, as opposed to your own politically motivated and politically correct desires to suppress speech you find offensive.

Imagine two drivers barreling down a street. The first sees a boy playing on the road, swerves away, but still strikes and kills the child. This is Israel. The second driver also sees a boy playing. He smiles as he guns the engine, and rams the car into the child. This is Hamas. They have both killed a child, a reprehensible act for which they should be held accountable. But one committed manslaughter, the other committed murder. Hamas has not killed as many civilians as Israel, not for a lack of a will to do so, but for a lack of better weapons. Given Israel’s war machine, it could have killed thousands more civilians in Gaza. They didn’t, not for a lack of weapons, but for a lack of a will to do so.

Intentional or not, the Palestinian civilians have suffered greatly. The killing of civilians by Israel is not welcomed. It is usually regretted, regarded as a mistake, and usually brings protests and calls for accountability. For Hamas, however, the killing of Jews is seen as a victory, and usually brings cheers. Who holds them accountable? I do feel sorry for the misery the Palestinian people have suffered. But it’s hard to empathize with a people who show no remorse at their own acts of cruelty.

Israel’s objectives in Gaza and the West Bank may at times be suspect. But Hamas’ objectives are always clear: the destruction of Israel as well as the Jews. Israel’s actions, however reckless, respond to a desire to protect its citizens in Sderot, or any other Israeli town. Hamas’ actions respond to a desire to protect its military hardware, irrespective if this places its citizens in harms way. So while Israel builds bomb shelters to protect its citizens, Hamas builds tunnels to protect its fighters, its leaders, its weapons. Hamas leaves its citizens to be killed and later paraded in front of the cameras.

Israel has spent its resources in building a modern society. Hamas has spent what little resources it has into building a war machine. Israelis, like any in the West, promote hope for a future in their children. Hamas promotes children becoming “martyrs.”

In 2005, Israel pulled out of Gaza. Hamas would pull into Jerusalem. If Hamas laid down its weapons, there would be a chance for peace. If Israel laid down its weapons, there would be no chance for Israel. Because in the end, Israel does go to war, but would rather live in peace. Hamas would simply rather Israel die.

Don’t say anything – or someone will kill you.

When someone tells you not to talk about something.

Talk about it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Em-MnAYiEWk&feature=related

It could be very “threatening” to the Palestinian Solidarity Week cause of spreading lies, propaganda and Jew hate. It might even open the eyes of some “useful idiots”, that is the true reason why it is “threatening” and “hate speech”, it must be blocked to avoid hurting the solidarity with peace loving Palestinians like these in the video above and below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G74yu8zna5o

It is like PBS, isn’t? very educational

Submitting oneself to a code of political correctness, and responding to the peer pressure of chanting slogans elevating Hamas to a presumption of moral respectability, is like dipping a toe in the waters of slavery.

At the age when one is in the grips of existencial anguish, why not? Can we really expect young people to be devoid of curiosity, and well guarded against trying anything in a supposedly “safe” environment? One rarely grows into adulthood in response to a wink and a nod.

In the midst of this intellectually toxic atmosphere, some students still manage to exercise adult judgment and courage, like the young man who challenged Barney Frank recently.

People capable of leadership are rare, and always have been. Thanks God, some of them become teachers, and do in fact lead the next generation into the exercise of rational thought, to which children take as easily as a duckling takes to water, if given a chance. Wisdom is not as noisy and boisterous as idiocy, but it’s still around, and there was plenty of it at the tea parties.