Hayward writes that:
....it is perfectly reasonable to shut down Students for Justice in Palestine chapters on college campuses purely on the grounds that they abuse the principle of free speech because their success as a movement would end the right of free speech for Jews (not to mention end the lives of Jews). Any SJP support for Hamas is a secondary question.Does the First Amendment guarantee a right to promote the death and destruction of others? Does it guarantee the right to express public hatred for a particular group?
... the principle is seldom better expressed than by David Lowenthal in his 1998 book No Liberty for License: The Forgotten Logic of the First Amendment:Citizens may ... find themselves asking whether our founding fathers, known for their prescience and realism, meant the First Amendment to protect those who would use freedom for the destruction of freedom. Was this keystone of the Bill of Rights really intended to guarantee the freedom of expression and organization to the enemies of freedom? . . .
Some will protest that the First Amendment guarantees freedom even to those who would destroy freedom, that it guarantees freedom to those who would counsel, urge, or even incite to the violation of the law. Such cannot be the case if the First Amendment is intended, above all, as an instrument of republican government, a way of ensuring that the national government is responsive to citizens, so that their rights may be kept secure.
Only if it can be shown that a [violent organization] contributes to republican ends can a case be made through the First Amendment for permitting it legal status. Otherwise, such groups are all legally and prudently shorn of this status from the outset, and not only without violating any part of the Constitution, but in keeping with its positive injunctions.
Isn't it ironic that we make hateful thoughts an exacerbating circumstance when committing a crime, but public manifestations of hate are supposed to be acceptable?
If someone chose to burn the Quran would those demonstrating on behalf of Hamas see the act as a legitimate expression of free speech? Are not those who protest in favor of an organization like Hamas, whose sole purpose is the eradication of Israel and the Jews who live there, doing the same thing as one who burns a Quran? Why do such people have any more right to free speech than does someone who publicly advocates political assassination or public lynchings?
It's a bit perverse that free speech is granted to those who hate this country, who hate Jews and Christians, who even hate the idea of free speech itself. It's astonishing that we grant free speech to the haters who deny the same right, via "cancel culture", to those who love this country and wish to see its people thrive and prosper by returning to the principles that made the U.S. the greatest nation in human history.
Maybe it's time to rethink the meaning and limits of freedom of speech.
