Free Speech, Except On Israel
On the failures of 'heterodox' thinkers to fight for civil liberties
Supporting freedom of speech includes defending the rights of people to express their views even if you find them distasteful. Unfortunately, following the attack by Hamas on Israel, we have seen a number of calls for the firing, shunning and criminalisation of pro-Palestinian and Israel-critical voices.
Thirty-four student groups at Harvard University are facing recriminations after they circulated an open letter stating that they “hold the Israeli regime entirely responsible for all unfolding violence”. In response, a number of online sleuths are threatening to dox student names and future employers have called for anyone associated with the letter to be refused jobs upon graduation.
Further censorious actions this week have included the president of the New York University Law Student Bar Association being denied a graduate job over a pro-Palestine op ed, a sports reporter being fired for expressing solidarity with Palestine and media personality Mia Khalifa losing her contract with Playboy after the pornographer found her social media posts supporting Palestine “disgusting and reprehensible”.
Public outrage over pro-Palestine protests in major cities has also led to harsh government crackdowns. France has outright banned protests supportive of Palestine in the country, whilst NSW police have vowed to crackdown on all ‘unauthorised’ protest activity and the UK Home Secretary is contemplating criminalising the Palestinian flag.
These actions should be loudly condemned for unjust stifling of civil liberties, namely the freedom of political expression. Yet, some of the loudest advocates for free speech, viewpoint diversity and heterodox ideas have been notably silent, or indeed fanning the flames.
Journalist Bari Weiss, who has manufactured an image of herself as an advocate for viewpoint diversity on university campuses and free expression, has spent the last week piling on student groups and academics for being insufficiently critical of Hamas. Her media company, The Free Press, published an op-ed by Marc Rowan, chief executive officer of Apollo Global Management, calling for university donors to use their clout to crush pro-Palestinian voices on campus.
Professor Steven Pinker, who has previously raised concerns about “the growing illiberalism, incivility, intellectual conformity, and repression of debate in today's universities” was calling for recriminations against Harvard students earlier this week. Claire Lehmann, whose Quillette magazine brands itself as a space for ‘free thought’ has spent the last week calling critics of Israel fascists and whining about public figures not parroting her views. Finally, critic of ‘woke moralism’ Jordan Peterson spent the week diagnosing critics of Israel as psychopaths and calling for media boycotts.
The harsh censorship of pro-Palestinian voices is nothing new. In 2021, journalist Emily Wilder was fired by the Associated Press for posting in support of Palestine on social media and earlier this year Kareem Tannous, an assistant professor at Cabrini University, was fired from his tenure track position after an online watchdog called StopAntisemitism labelled him ‘Antisemite of the Week’ over his posts critical of Israel.
Yet the typical ‘free speech absolutists’ appear to have no stomach for defending the rights of their political opponents, instead they resort to a kind of double-think where well-articulated but critical positions on Israel are reframed as ‘hate speech’ or dog whistles for antisemitism.
If any of these actions had been taken against gender critical feminists, heterodox writers or conservative pundits (who, for the record, also also have the right to express themselves freely) there would be vocal outrage from the usual crowd. Instead, we get thinly veiled encouragement to crack down on speech they find upsetting.
Integrity means sticking to your principles, even when it gets difficult. The hypocrisy of self-described ‘free speech absolutists’ in this time is a telling indication of their poor character.
Whether you agree with critics of Israel or not, their perspective is a valid form of political speech. Nobody in a liberal democracy should face losing a job or a criminal charge merely for expressing a political opinion.