Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of ways we can up our game for this critical election.

Hey, guys, ready or not, twenty twenty four is here and we here at breaking points, are already thinking of ways we can up our game for this critical election.

We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent.

We rely on our premium subs to expand coverage, upgrade the studio ad staff, give you, guys, the best independent.

Coverage that is possible.

Coverage that is possible.

If you like what we're all about, it just means the absolute world to have your support.

If you like what we're all about, it just means the absolute world to have your support.

But enough with that, let's get to the show.

But enough with that, let's get to the show.

You are now liable to being accused of a felony for the expression of your political views that somehow align with the interests of a terrorist group, like hey, we should leave the Middle East, or saying we should leave Ukraine and that somehow is deemed pro Russian speech.

You are now liable to being accused of a felony for the expression of your political views that somehow align with the interests of a terrorist group, like hey, we should leave the Middle East, or saying we should leave Ukraine and that somehow is deemed pro Russian speech.

I can't think of a graver assault on.

I can't think of a graver assault on.

The rate of pre speed than criminal and criminalizing political activism of that sort.

The rate of pre speed than criminal and criminalizing political activism of that sort.

That's nonsense, And you're being disingenuous and leveling those kinds of accusations. There's a difference between giving a speech saying Israel is being illegitimate, they're engaged in genocide, this is all wrong, this is bad, we shouldn't support them, and chanting from the river to the sea Israel should be gone, kill all the use any jew you see today, punch them in the face.

That's nonsense, And you're being disingenuous and leveling those kinds of accusations. There's a difference between giving a speech saying Israel is being illegitimate, they're engaged in genocide, this is all wrong, this is bad, we shouldn't support them, and chanting from the river to the sea Israel should be gone, kill all the use any jew you see today, punch them in the face.

No playing those groups were doing that.

No playing those groups were doing that.

Welcome to Counterpoints. We're glad to be here on a Friday, a Thursday night. If you're a premium subscriber breaking Points dot com, if you want to subscribe to the premium version of the show, you get the whole thing in your inbox Thursday nights.

Welcome to Counterpoints. We're glad to be here on a Friday, a Thursday night. If you're a premium subscriber breaking Points dot com, if you want to subscribe to the premium version of the show, you get the whole thing in your inbox Thursday nights.

The rest of you. Happy Friday, Ryan.

The rest of you. Happy Friday, Ryan.

We always enjoy being here on a Friday, especially for the subject matter that we're going to tackle today.

We always enjoy being here on a Friday, especially for the subject matter that we're going to tackle today.

Yes, indeed, and we're going to be joined by two people debating, And first of all, we can talk about the format first, Like you and I are moderators, but we have opinions too, Yes, and I saw that the audience was a little bit upset that we also were injecting some of our own opinions. You're just gonna have to deal with that, you mean you, yeah, yes, me. We're moderators, but we have an opinion. So it's okay, it's okay. And these are grown ups. They're going to be able to handle it. So let's introduce these grown ups. We have Glenn Greenwald, who is a Pulitzer prize winning journalist. That's right, and also the host of System Update and Glenn, where else can people fine and subscribe to your stuff?

Yes, indeed, and we're going to be joined by two people debating, And first of all, we can talk about the format first, Like you and I are moderators, but we have opinions too, Yes, and I saw that the audience was a little bit upset that we also were injecting some of our own opinions. You're just gonna have to deal with that, you mean you, yeah, yes, me. We're moderators, but we have an opinion. So it's okay, it's okay. And these are grown ups. They're going to be able to handle it. So let's introduce these grown ups. We have Glenn Greenwald, who is a Pulitzer prize winning journalist. That's right, and also the host of System Update and Glenn, where else can people fine and subscribe to your stuff?

Yeah, we do a lot of written original journalism on Locals, which is the sort of substack of the Roman platform, so people can find us there as well.

Yeah, we do a lot of written original journalism on Locals, which is the sort of substack of the Roman platform, so people can find us there as well.

All right, right, and then Ilia Shapiros current title was Senior Fellow and Director of Constitutional Studies at the Manhattan Institute. Ilia and Glenn, thanks so much for joining us.

All right, right, and then Ilia Shapiros current title was Senior Fellow and Director of Constitutional Studies at the Manhattan Institute. Ilia and Glenn, thanks so much for joining us.

Yeah, great to be with you guys.

Yeah, great to be with you guys.

And just to be clear, at the outset of this debate, I'm taking the pro speech pro law position, So I don't know what that makes plain, Well.

And just to be clear, at the outset of this debate, I'm taking the pro speech pro law position, So I don't know what that makes plain, Well.

That's the Yeah, I'm the pro censorship, anti law, pro crime position.

That's the Yeah, I'm the pro censorship, anti law, pro crime position.

Right.

Right.

See, we're going to.

See, we're going to.

Assess all of this out, yeah, exactly, because these are some genuinely interesting questions. And to begin, we have a video of some protests that happen at MIT recently where students are overrunning a fence that was erected to keep them out of an encampment. Let's roll this type again. So if you were just listening to that, you were listening to students just get rid of a fence basically was keeping them out of an encampment at MIT. Yeah, I saw this video because you I think you retweeted it and the caption on the retweet was quote expel and arrest.

Assess all of this out, yeah, exactly, because these are some genuinely interesting questions. And to begin, we have a video of some protests that happen at MIT recently where students are overrunning a fence that was erected to keep them out of an encampment. Let's roll this type again. So if you were just listening to that, you were listening to students just get rid of a fence basically was keeping them out of an encampment at MIT. Yeah, I saw this video because you I think you retweeted it and the caption on the retweet was quote expel and arrest.

And I think this is a.

And I think this is a.

Good place to start, actually, because it's sort of getting into the question of how universities can tackle the question of free speech when it comes to these protests. And MIT was obviously in the hot seat with this right after October seventh, when the president of MIT, Sally Kornboth, was in that infamous can rational hearing. So Eliot, let's start with you expel and arrest the students who tore down that fence, their flesh out that point for us.

Good place to start, actually, because it's sort of getting into the question of how universities can tackle the question of free speech when it comes to these protests. And MIT was obviously in the hot seat with this right after October seventh, when the president of MIT, Sally Kornboth, was in that infamous can rational hearing. So Eliot, let's start with you expel and arrest the students who tore down that fence, their flesh out that point for us.

Sure, I'm basically with Ben Sas, the president of the Newarky of Florida, the deer Meyer, the president of Vanderbilt, who've been putting out op eds and stating that they are broadly protective of speech as am.

Sure, I'm basically with Ben Sas, the president of the Newarky of Florida, the deer Meyer, the president of Vanderbilt, who've been putting out op eds and stating that they are broadly protective of speech as am.

I fully agree with that.

I fully agree with that.

But when you analyze the situation, you have to understand that not everything is speech. That is, if you're taking actions that break the rules, break the law, whether it's vandalism, assault, or anything else, you don't get a pass if you're doing it for an expressive purpose, whether that's political, artistic, or otherwise. Then there's some speech that's simply not protected death threats or incitement of violence. Pretty high bar according to Supreme Court jurisprudence. And then there are time, place, and manner regulations. And this is central to this debate. So in the campus context, you can't block access to educational facilities, you can't disrupt classes or organized student meetings that have been duly reserved and things like that. You can't harass and intimidate. There are rules about these sorts of things. In the off campus context, the equivalent is, even though we care about political speech, I can't go to your neighborhood in the middle of the night and with a bullhorn tell you exactly what I think about Donald Trump and Joe Biden. That's disturbing the peace. So here there are clear rules. You get to speak and protest as long as you're not disrupting the event, disrupting classes, otherwise preventing the university from achieving its educational mission. And so these are clear law breakers. Rule breakers and actions have consequences.

But when you analyze the situation, you have to understand that not everything is speech. That is, if you're taking actions that break the rules, break the law, whether it's vandalism, assault, or anything else, you don't get a pass if you're doing it for an expressive purpose, whether that's political, artistic, or otherwise. Then there's some speech that's simply not protected death threats or incitement of violence. Pretty high bar according to Supreme Court jurisprudence. And then there are time, place, and manner regulations. And this is central to this debate. So in the campus context, you can't block access to educational facilities, you can't disrupt classes or organized student meetings that have been duly reserved and things like that. You can't harass and intimidate. There are rules about these sorts of things. In the off campus context, the equivalent is, even though we care about political speech, I can't go to your neighborhood in the middle of the night and with a bullhorn tell you exactly what I think about Donald Trump and Joe Biden. That's disturbing the peace. So here there are clear rules. You get to speak and protest as long as you're not disrupting the event, disrupting classes, otherwise preventing the university from achieving its educational mission. And so these are clear law breakers. Rule breakers and actions have consequences.

Glenn, I don't think anybody believes that there should be no laws, but what's your response to the claim that these particular protesters ought to be expelled or arrested, or in general, that the protesters need to be thoroughly cracked down on because they broke some laws.

Glenn, I don't think anybody believes that there should be no laws, but what's your response to the claim that these particular protesters ought to be expelled or arrested, or in general, that the protesters need to be thoroughly cracked down on because they broke some laws.

I think the only way to determine the authenticity of somebody's beliefs about free speech, defensive free speech, their interpretation of free speech, The only way is whether they apply standards consistently to the views that they most hate and the views that they most like. Now, Ilia is a fanatical supporter of Israel and the protesters, who's the crackdown on whom he's defending or expressing a view and defending a cause that he vehemently dislikes. What I think is so important to point out is there's a historical context here. It's not as though the crackdown on student groups began only with these encampments. Immediately after October seventh, we began seeing all sorts of attempts to stifle political speech, the most extreme of which was when Ron DeSantis ordered pro Palestinian groups to be shut down on all University of Florida campuses, a move that the only real non partisan free speech organization in the country fire dot org said was not only a grave assault on the First Amendment for the speed rights of pro Palestinian students, but was such an obvious and glaring violation the First Amendment that they wrote a letter to university administrators or urging them to ignore the order by Governor Desantos. There have been a lot of those kinds of attacks well before these encampments arose, and of course before October seventh, one of the most common forms of censorship on political campuses and elsewhere were attempts to silent Jewish students. There have been all pro Palestinian students. Rather, there have been professors who have been fired for criticizing Israel. There have been student groups whose application to exist have been denied because they're pro Palestinian. Fire dot org has been defending these people for a long time. So a lot of conservatives waive the free speech banner when it comes to targeting conservative speech, and I do too, I defend that speech, and yet suddenly abandon those standards as soon as it comes to the cause that they most love or the speech they most hate, which is criticism of Israel. The other thing I want to point out is, of course it's the case that if you engage in violence, you should be arrested.

I think the only way to determine the authenticity of somebody's beliefs about free speech, defensive free speech, their interpretation of free speech, The only way is whether they apply standards consistently to the views that they most hate and the views that they most like. Now, Ilia is a fanatical supporter of Israel and the protesters, who's the crackdown on whom he's defending or expressing a view and defending a cause that he vehemently dislikes. What I think is so important to point out is there's a historical context here. It's not as though the crackdown on student groups began only with these encampments. Immediately after October seventh, we began seeing all sorts of attempts to stifle political speech, the most extreme of which was when Ron DeSantis ordered pro Palestinian groups to be shut down on all University of Florida campuses, a move that the only real non partisan free speech organization in the country fire dot org said was not only a grave assault on the First Amendment for the speed rights of pro Palestinian students, but was such an obvious and glaring violation the First Amendment that they wrote a letter to university administrators or urging them to ignore the order by Governor Desantos. There have been a lot of those kinds of attacks well before these encampments arose, and of course before October seventh, one of the most common forms of censorship on political campuses and elsewhere were attempts to silent Jewish students. There have been all pro Palestinian students. Rather, there have been professors who have been fired for criticizing Israel. There have been student groups whose application to exist have been denied because they're pro Palestinian. Fire dot org has been defending these people for a long time. So a lot of conservatives waive the free speech banner when it comes to targeting conservative speech, and I do too, I defend that speech, and yet suddenly abandon those standards as soon as it comes to the cause that they most love or the speech they most hate, which is criticism of Israel. The other thing I want to point out is, of course it's the case that if you engage in violence, you should be arrested.

The problem is a lot of the violence, I.

The problem is a lot of the violence, I.

Would even say most recently has come from pro Palestinian counter pro israel counter protesters.

Would even say most recently has come from pro Palestinian counter pro israel counter protesters.

They showed up at a camp.

They showed up at a camp.

At ACLU at the UCLA and began violently hurling objects and using tear gas and injured a bunch of pro Palestinian protesters at the camp. There's a study that was just released by a group that follows public crises and safety crises that said that ninety nine percent of the protests that have been taking place on campus have been peaceful, and the one percent that wasn't was things like the UCLA one. And you know, there are a lot of protests that use civil disobedience. One of the protest movements that conservatives most revere and most champion in Herald and defended was the Trucker's protest in Canada, which was designed to protest the Trudeau government's mandates for COVID vaccines as a way to keep your job. And yet they use civil disobedience state blow streets. They prevented ours from passing all the time in Toronto, and yet the crackdown on this protest was deemed tyrannical by conservatives because in that case they agreed with the cause. So I think the context here is important. Of course, of protesters attack Jewish students, which has not been happening, I mean using violence, And even if the ones who are blocking ingress and egress, which I do am not comfortable with to say Okay, you cannot do that, I'm fine with that as well. But there has been an overall, very potent movement to suppress and censor criticism of Israel or propalaestined speech for a long time, and a great part of what's happening now is a byproduct of that vision.

At ACLU at the UCLA and began violently hurling objects and using tear gas and injured a bunch of pro Palestinian protesters at the camp. There's a study that was just released by a group that follows public crises and safety crises that said that ninety nine percent of the protests that have been taking place on campus have been peaceful, and the one percent that wasn't was things like the UCLA one. And you know, there are a lot of protests that use civil disobedience. One of the protest movements that conservatives most revere and most champion in Herald and defended was the Trucker's protest in Canada, which was designed to protest the Trudeau government's mandates for COVID vaccines as a way to keep your job. And yet they use civil disobedience state blow streets. They prevented ours from passing all the time in Toronto, and yet the crackdown on this protest was deemed tyrannical by conservatives because in that case they agreed with the cause. So I think the context here is important. Of course, of protesters attack Jewish students, which has not been happening, I mean using violence, And even if the ones who are blocking ingress and egress, which I do am not comfortable with to say Okay, you cannot do that, I'm fine with that as well. But there has been an overall, very potent movement to suppress and censor criticism of Israel or propalaestined speech for a long time, and a great part of what's happening now is a byproduct of that vision.

So, Ilia, you've been an outspoken critic of a lot of the crackdowns on speech on campuses towards the right in recent years that Gunn was alluding to there, Why are you not.

So, Ilia, you've been an outspoken critic of a lot of the crackdowns on speech on campuses towards the right in recent years that Gunn was alluding to there, Why are you not.

A hypocrite in this case?

A hypocrite in this case?

Basically, how do you respond to the allegation that you're a hypocrite for wanting a crackdown in these cases with the Propalestine student protesters.

Basically, how do you respond to the allegation that you're a hypocrite for wanting a crackdown in these cases with the Propalestine student protesters.

Well, Glenn and I are in full agreement that Fire is one of the greatest organizations in America I'm a big fan the Foundation of Individual Rights and expression. I spoke at their big national gala last year, and you know, I agree with them ninety nine percent of the time. I don't think I agree with myself one hundred percent of the time. But fire does fantastic work, and I defend speech and expression. But the rubber hits the road of what happens when you're indeed violating the rules. And Glen is getting at that when he's talking about starts talking about civil disobedience. If indeed the anti Israel pro Hamas protesters are engaged in civil disobedience, then what is that? That's the willingness to suffer consequences, to go to jail, to be expelled or disciplined, to highlight to showcase the injustice or illegitimacy of the law or policy that they're protesting. Think about Mahama Gandhi or Martin Luther King, the prototypical examples of civil disobedience. It's not yelling and intimidating and harassing and vandalizing. All of these sorts of aggressive actions but I think are counterproductive even for their causes. And this has nothing to do with whether you're a pro Israel or anti Israel, Yeah, UCLA.

Well, Glenn and I are in full agreement that Fire is one of the greatest organizations in America I'm a big fan the Foundation of Individual Rights and expression. I spoke at their big national gala last year, and you know, I agree with them ninety nine percent of the time. I don't think I agree with myself one hundred percent of the time. But fire does fantastic work, and I defend speech and expression. But the rubber hits the road of what happens when you're indeed violating the rules. And Glen is getting at that when he's talking about starts talking about civil disobedience. If indeed the anti Israel pro Hamas protesters are engaged in civil disobedience, then what is that? That's the willingness to suffer consequences, to go to jail, to be expelled or disciplined, to highlight to showcase the injustice or illegitimacy of the law or policy that they're protesting. Think about Mahama Gandhi or Martin Luther King, the prototypical examples of civil disobedience. It's not yelling and intimidating and harassing and vandalizing. All of these sorts of aggressive actions but I think are counterproductive even for their causes. And this has nothing to do with whether you're a pro Israel or anti Israel, Yeah, UCLA.

I don't know what exactly went down.

I don't know what exactly went down.

But to the extent that the pro Israel side was engaged in violence, that's not good and that's not protected speech either. So you know, I try to be principled as much as the next guy. And we can debate the DeSantis order about students for Justice in Palestine, which is separate issue about organizational structure and material support for terrorism, was the Supreme Court has held is not protected by the First Amendment. But in terms of individual speech versus violating the rules, I try to be very consistent. And you know, those on the left who on October sixth would have wanted to discipline those who use the wrong pronouns or otherwise engage in microaggressions, you know, if they're hypocritical, you know, there's no.

But to the extent that the pro Israel side was engaged in violence, that's not good and that's not protected speech either. So you know, I try to be principled as much as the next guy. And we can debate the DeSantis order about students for Justice in Palestine, which is separate issue about organizational structure and material support for terrorism, was the Supreme Court has held is not protected by the First Amendment. But in terms of individual speech versus violating the rules, I try to be very consistent. And you know, those on the left who on October sixth would have wanted to discipline those who use the wrong pronouns or otherwise engage in microaggressions, you know, if they're hypocritical, you know, there's no.

Crime against that. The Americans have the right to do so.

Crime against that. The Americans have the right to do so.

But again, we have to be clear about what we're dealing with these protests, these encampments.

But again, we have to be clear about what we're dealing with these protests, these encampments.

If you're violating neutral rules, that's a different.

If you're violating neutral rules, that's a different.

Situation than engaging in free speech. And again, those university officials, whatever they're underlying personal politics or viewpoints that have done well in these situations have made clear that these are the rules. We protect free speech, and we enforce our rules against disruption or violence or blocking access or otherwise preventing the educational institution from going about its duties.

Situation than engaging in free speech. And again, those university officials, whatever they're underlying personal politics or viewpoints that have done well in these situations have made clear that these are the rules. We protect free speech, and we enforce our rules against disruption or violence or blocking access or otherwise preventing the educational institution from going about its duties.

Can I just ask ilio question quickly if you guys don't mind so, I mean, certainly what you said described to civil disobedience is true. Yet we have a long tradition of distinguishing between brave acts of wild breaking that involve violence against people, and say, students taking over a student building for a couple of days non violently, which though technically is a violation of campus rules, we do as the sort of crime that narrates a thousand police officers being sent in. But if you don't recognize that kind of distinction, and I am interested in hearing your views of all the other censorship examples I mentioned against Propelstinian protests.

Can I just ask ilio question quickly if you guys don't mind so, I mean, certainly what you said described to civil disobedience is true. Yet we have a long tradition of distinguishing between brave acts of wild breaking that involve violence against people, and say, students taking over a student building for a couple of days non violently, which though technically is a violation of campus rules, we do as the sort of crime that narrates a thousand police officers being sent in. But if you don't recognize that kind of distinction, and I am interested in hearing your views of all the other censorship examples I mentioned against Propelstinian protests.

But let me ask you your views.

But let me ask you your views.

On the Canadian protest, which again became a huge cause celeb among conservatives, among people on the right who accused the Trudeau government of being tyrannical, of being repressive and authoritarian because they ended with force those protests. But those Trucker protests which I was defending, were actually engaged in illegal behavior. They were blocking the ability of motorists to drive to work or drive back home. That was the whole point of the trucker's protest was they occupied roads and didn't let anyone pass. Did you support the Trudeau government's crackdown on them on the grounds that while technically they're violating the law by blocking traffic and therefore they should go to prison.

On the Canadian protest, which again became a huge cause celeb among conservatives, among people on the right who accused the Trudeau government of being tyrannical, of being repressive and authoritarian because they ended with force those protests. But those Trucker protests which I was defending, were actually engaged in illegal behavior. They were blocking the ability of motorists to drive to work or drive back home. That was the whole point of the trucker's protest was they occupied roads and didn't let anyone pass. Did you support the Trudeau government's crackdown on them on the grounds that while technically they're violating the law by blocking traffic and therefore they should go to prison.

Now, even though I'm Canadian, I sort of go both ways on the forty nine parallel.

Now, even though I'm Canadian, I sort of go both ways on the forty nine parallel.

I'm the dualist citizen.

I'm the dualist citizen.

I'm not fully up to speed on Canadian laws in that circumstance. My understanding is Trudeau was criticized not for enforcing simple rules against blocking public highways, but for invoking an emergency act and just taking ultra varias beyond power actions by the executive, by the Prime minister, whether violating federalism, whether violating separation of powers or otherwise, and that was where the legal concern happened. But certainly to the extent that the truckers were, you know, blocking people's route to work during rush hour, what have you, then those neutral rules should should have been enforced against them, and even though I did agree.

I'm not fully up to speed on Canadian laws in that circumstance. My understanding is Trudeau was criticized not for enforcing simple rules against blocking public highways, but for invoking an emergency act and just taking ultra varias beyond power actions by the executive, by the Prime minister, whether violating federalism, whether violating separation of powers or otherwise, and that was where the legal concern happened. But certainly to the extent that the truckers were, you know, blocking people's route to work during rush hour, what have you, then those neutral rules should should have been enforced against them, and even though I did agree.

With the justice of their overall cause.

With the justice of their overall cause.

But the Trudeau thing was not about regular cops in action. It was about the Prime minister cracking down, freezing bank accounts against banking law, using emergency laws improperly, that sort of thing.

But the Trudeau thing was not about regular cops in action. It was about the Prime minister cracking down, freezing bank accounts against banking law, using emergency laws improperly, that sort of thing.

Elly, I feel like you might be caught in a little bit of a contradiction here at I want to see if I'm right about that you can, if you can sort it out. It seems like you're saying that the severity of the crackdown is what matters. That you would have supported some type of civil finds or some type of and civil in the word of like just just gentle crackdown by police, police arrest, police arrests, police arrests of the truckers because they did violate a neutral law. But it was when he took it to the next level and made it this emergency response that you condemn it.

Elly, I feel like you might be caught in a little bit of a contradiction here at I want to see if I'm right about that you can, if you can sort it out. It seems like you're saying that the severity of the crackdown is what matters. That you would have supported some type of civil finds or some type of and civil in the word of like just just gentle crackdown by police, police arrest, police arrests, police arrests of the truckers because they did violate a neutral law. But it was when he took it to the next level and made it this emergency response that you condemn it.

How does that square with, say, the.

How does that square with, say, the.

NYPD sending in this like medieval siege weaponry and like a thousand guys to like storm their way into the library, and compare that to say, the bastion of libertarian and libertarian intellectualism in this country, the University of Chicago, which put out a statement saying, look, there's an encampment on our campus right now. Many of the people there hold odious views that we find noxious. They are technically in violation of our campus rules and regulations. However, because of our interest in free expression here at the University of Chicago, as long as there's no danger to public safety, we're going to allow this encampment to continue in the furtherance of free expression. So why was University of Chicago wrong there? And am I right that you're that you're okay with a gentle crackdown on the truckers but a brutal crackdown on the Columbia protesters?

NYPD sending in this like medieval siege weaponry and like a thousand guys to like storm their way into the library, and compare that to say, the bastion of libertarian and libertarian intellectualism in this country, the University of Chicago, which put out a statement saying, look, there's an encampment on our campus right now. Many of the people there hold odious views that we find noxious. They are technically in violation of our campus rules and regulations. However, because of our interest in free expression here at the University of Chicago, as long as there's no danger to public safety, we're going to allow this encampment to continue in the furtherance of free expression. So why was University of Chicago wrong there? And am I right that you're that you're okay with a gentle crackdown on the truckers but a brutal crackdown on the Columbia protesters?

And why why the distinction there?

And why why the distinction there?

No, that that's putting a lot of words in my mouth, a lot of adjectives. I try not to use adjectives.

No, that that's putting a lot of words in my mouth, a lot of adjectives. I try not to use adjectives.

It's it's uh weak writing, really, But these are apples and oranges that the trucker situation and what's going on on campus.

It's it's uh weak writing, really, But these are apples and oranges that the trucker situation and what's going on on campus.

You know, different.

You know, different.

Countries, different laws in play, different issues. The look, there's a difference between a.

Countries, different laws in play, different issues. The look, there's a difference between a.

Capital crime and the death penalty, and you know.

Capital crime and the death penalty, and you know.

A misdemeaner jay walking, and there are gradations in between Obviously, different crimes deserve different punishments, or in the campus context, certain things, you know, get you get you a reprimand from a dean or simply a cautionary you know, conversation, and certain things give you expelled, and everything in between. So you have to evaluate what the exact violation is and respond appropriately with due process, not just a kangaroo court and all of that. University of Chicago, which is my law school alma mater and sort of the gold standard for both free speech, institutional neutrality viewpoint non discrimination in hiring.

A misdemeaner jay walking, and there are gradations in between Obviously, different crimes deserve different punishments, or in the campus context, certain things, you know, get you get you a reprimand from a dean or simply a cautionary you know, conversation, and certain things give you expelled, and everything in between. So you have to evaluate what the exact violation is and respond appropriately with due process, not just a kangaroo court and all of that. University of Chicago, which is my law school alma mater and sort of the gold standard for both free speech, institutional neutrality viewpoint non discrimination in hiring.

That the Chicago trifecta does great things.

That the Chicago trifecta does great things.

It let the encamping continue for a few days and then ultimately cleared it out as well.

It let the encamping continue for a few days and then ultimately cleared it out as well.

I think that happened yesterday or the day before.

I think that happened yesterday or the day before.

So you know a lot of alumni were calling for Chicago to enforce their actual rules and enforce their actual initial statement that they made sooner, but they let kind of a conversation.

So you know a lot of alumni were calling for Chicago to enforce their actual rules and enforce their actual initial statement that they made sooner, but they let kind of a conversation.

Continue for for a few days. Whatever we can. We can Monday morning, quarterback all day.

Continue for for a few days. Whatever we can. We can Monday morning, quarterback all day.

But it's not about the gentleness of you know, what kind of equipment the police use when they come in, or how many of them are there. That's an evaluation of police tactics and proportional force and methods and things like that. But when you occupy buildings and vandalize and break windows and do all sorts of things that do disrupt the educational mission, that terrorize the workers, the working class workers that are there, as we've seen reported by the Free Press with respect to Columbia's takeover of Hamilton Hall, that's a problem.

But it's not about the gentleness of you know, what kind of equipment the police use when they come in, or how many of them are there. That's an evaluation of police tactics and proportional force and methods and things like that. But when you occupy buildings and vandalize and break windows and do all sorts of things that do disrupt the educational mission, that terrorize the workers, the working class workers that are there, as we've seen reported by the Free Press with respect to Columbia's takeover of Hamilton Hall, that's a problem.

Certain things are criminal violations.

Certain things are criminal violations.

Certain things are mere violations of the university Code of Responsibilities, which could get you expelled or suspended or some other kind of punishment, again commensurate with the type of crime. But this is not about gentle crackdowns versus brutal crackdowns. It's about dealing with, you know, responding to situations as they arise.

Certain things are mere violations of the university Code of Responsibilities, which could get you expelled or suspended or some other kind of punishment, again commensurate with the type of crime. But this is not about gentle crackdowns versus brutal crackdowns. It's about dealing with, you know, responding to situations as they arise.

And there's no right to you know.

And there's no right to you know.

Unquote mostly peaceful protest or what have your, mostly peaceful occupation of buildings and disruptions.

Unquote mostly peaceful protest or what have your, mostly peaceful occupation of buildings and disruptions.

Of educational missions. Colombia has now canceled their graduation ceremonies.

Of educational missions. Colombia has now canceled their graduation ceremonies.

They moved all of their classes online. That's not right for all of the students who are not engaged in all of this activism. I think Chicago's doing better Princeton, my undergraduate alma mater, is doing better and enforcing rules against sleeping and camping and things like that, while allowing the protesters to actually protest in a non disruptive way. So again, Ben Sass, at University of Florida, you don't have these massive things. So there are different responses that we're seeing in real time, differentiating what real leadership is while protecting the freedom of speech.

They moved all of their classes online. That's not right for all of the students who are not engaged in all of this activism. I think Chicago's doing better Princeton, my undergraduate alma mater, is doing better and enforcing rules against sleeping and camping and things like that, while allowing the protesters to actually protest in a non disruptive way. So again, Ben Sass, at University of Florida, you don't have these massive things. So there are different responses that we're seeing in real time, differentiating what real leadership is while protecting the freedom of speech.

So let me kick that to Glenn, actually, because there's something interesting in Glenn. You mentioned this earlier, and I don't want to gloss over it that when there are violations, it's reasonable in certain cases, and that's where I want to kind of drill down into specifics for the university to respond by enforcing its rules. So while we're talking about our alma maters, my alma manter George Washington University, there were some there was a leader I actually don't know if there were a student or not chanting guillotine. There were some students in the audience chanting guillotine in reference to different university officials that were being put on a sort of mock trial in the middle of the encampment. There obviously at Columbia we saw some obvious vandalism, breaking into the building, et cetera. So, Glenn, what is your sort of where's the line for you as to what's protected speech, what's protected civil disobedient not protected civil disobediance, but what sort of tolerable civil disobedience? How do you kind of categorize different things we've seen at these encampments.

So let me kick that to Glenn, actually, because there's something interesting in Glenn. You mentioned this earlier, and I don't want to gloss over it that when there are violations, it's reasonable in certain cases, and that's where I want to kind of drill down into specifics for the university to respond by enforcing its rules. So while we're talking about our alma maters, my alma manter George Washington University, there were some there was a leader I actually don't know if there were a student or not chanting guillotine. There were some students in the audience chanting guillotine in reference to different university officials that were being put on a sort of mock trial in the middle of the encampment. There obviously at Columbia we saw some obvious vandalism, breaking into the building, et cetera. So, Glenn, what is your sort of where's the line for you as to what's protected speech, what's protected civil disobedient not protected civil disobediance, but what sort of tolerable civil disobedience? How do you kind of categorize different things we've seen at these encampments.

Yeah, I think it absolutely depends on the impact. Obviously, if you have people using violence, and there have been so many hate crimes hoaxes about trying to create this narrative that American Jews are this new endangered and victimized group. They can't even walk outside without being violently attacked. The one example that's spread all over the media, and that was promoted by Barry Weiss's Free Press, ended up being a complete hoax. This Jewish Shudent who has been a long time pro iSER activist, who claimed that she was stabbed in the eye with a Palestinian flag. And then when you watch the video, she was standing near the protesters, they were just marching by her waving flags. One of the flags just brushed up against her. She went on TV there was nothing wrong with her eyes, she said, the only symptoms she had was a little bit of a headache. And yet Mike Johnson goes to the Holocaust Museum yesterday and claims that Jewish students plural are now having attacks on them violently by being stabbed in the eye with Palestinian flags. It's like a Jesse Smollett level of hate crimes hoax, but written large to justify these aggressive crackdowns. We just had, you know, two weeks ago the House of Representatives that passed a law that wildly expanded the definition of anti Semitism for anti discrimination law, and it includes a wide range of views that obviously are constitutionally protected, such as saying that you think Israeli crimes and war are similar to what the Nazis did, to suggest that certain people Evangelicals or American Jews who are inculcated from birth with worshiping Israel and being devoted to it, have a greater allegiance to Israel if it's in conflict with the United States, to even criticizing Israel in a way that is supposedly a double standard, meaning you criticize Israel more harshly than you do. These are now rendered illegal under anti discrimination laws. That's a full frontal assault on basic free speech rights in addition to all the other examples that I cited, And I think the most important thing here when we're talking about standards is, you know, I think human beings need to be humble.

Yeah, I think it absolutely depends on the impact. Obviously, if you have people using violence, and there have been so many hate crimes hoaxes about trying to create this narrative that American Jews are this new endangered and victimized group. They can't even walk outside without being violently attacked. The one example that's spread all over the media, and that was promoted by Barry Weiss's Free Press, ended up being a complete hoax. This Jewish Shudent who has been a long time pro iSER activist, who claimed that she was stabbed in the eye with a Palestinian flag. And then when you watch the video, she was standing near the protesters, they were just marching by her waving flags. One of the flags just brushed up against her. She went on TV there was nothing wrong with her eyes, she said, the only symptoms she had was a little bit of a headache. And yet Mike Johnson goes to the Holocaust Museum yesterday and claims that Jewish students plural are now having attacks on them violently by being stabbed in the eye with Palestinian flags. It's like a Jesse Smollett level of hate crimes hoax, but written large to justify these aggressive crackdowns. We just had, you know, two weeks ago the House of Representatives that passed a law that wildly expanded the definition of anti Semitism for anti discrimination law, and it includes a wide range of views that obviously are constitutionally protected, such as saying that you think Israeli crimes and war are similar to what the Nazis did, to suggest that certain people Evangelicals or American Jews who are inculcated from birth with worshiping Israel and being devoted to it, have a greater allegiance to Israel if it's in conflict with the United States, to even criticizing Israel in a way that is supposedly a double standard, meaning you criticize Israel more harshly than you do. These are now rendered illegal under anti discrimination laws. That's a full frontal assault on basic free speech rights in addition to all the other examples that I cited, And I think the most important thing here when we're talking about standards is, you know, I think human beings need to be humble.

We are not consistency machines.

We are not consistency machines.

Of course, we're going to be more inclined to support crackdowns on in censorship of the views that we most hate. And again, Ilio, who is a free speech champion in a lot of contacts, is somebody who is a fanatical devotee to Israel. He really believes that Israel has to be protacted and defended. And I think he should be more humble about asking himself whether or not he's applying standards inconsistently. Because the people who's silencing he's supporting happened to be people whose views he most hates. I don't think there's another cause that offends him more than this one, namely criticizing Israel or calling for the end of Zionism. And just to point out one example that I mean, I know referenced earlier, a study, not social media anecdotes, but a study that said ninety nine percent of campus encampments and protests have been entirely nonviolent. One of the examples of violence bet behind the UCLA one was a video that surfaced yesterday where a former IDF soldier and a professor at the University of Arizona physically menaced Muslim woman by being using a posture of wanting to fight, getting an inch away from them, having that body posture like you're ready to hit them. The Muslim women were covering their faces. It was very difficult to watch. That was one of the gravest acts of actual physical intimidation and force that I've seen of these incidents. Ilia went on to Twitter and said the following quote. A postdoctoral researcher at Arizona State lost his temper after being provoked at a pro Israel rally over the weekend, so blaming these Muslim women who were physically threatened and menaced, he said it wasn't a good look, but hardly a capital offense, with some similarities to my poorly phrased tweet, and then it went on to defend the idea that.

Of course, we're going to be more inclined to support crackdowns on in censorship of the views that we most hate. And again, Ilio, who is a free speech champion in a lot of contacts, is somebody who is a fanatical devotee to Israel. He really believes that Israel has to be protacted and defended. And I think he should be more humble about asking himself whether or not he's applying standards inconsistently. Because the people who's silencing he's supporting happened to be people whose views he most hates. I don't think there's another cause that offends him more than this one, namely criticizing Israel or calling for the end of Zionism. And just to point out one example that I mean, I know referenced earlier, a study, not social media anecdotes, but a study that said ninety nine percent of campus encampments and protests have been entirely nonviolent. One of the examples of violence bet behind the UCLA one was a video that surfaced yesterday where a former IDF soldier and a professor at the University of Arizona physically menaced Muslim woman by being using a posture of wanting to fight, getting an inch away from them, having that body posture like you're ready to hit them. The Muslim women were covering their faces. It was very difficult to watch. That was one of the gravest acts of actual physical intimidation and force that I've seen of these incidents. Ilia went on to Twitter and said the following quote. A postdoctoral researcher at Arizona State lost his temper after being provoked at a pro Israel rally over the weekend, so blaming these Muslim women who were physically threatened and menaced, he said it wasn't a good look, but hardly a capital offense, with some similarities to my poorly phrased tweet, and then it went on to defend the idea that.

This professor, Jonathan.

This professor, Jonathan.

Utelman, who was really the one who used physical menacing, should not even lose his job now if the situation were reversed and these were muslimmen physically menacing Jewish women in this way, I strongly believe that Ilia and many other people would be calling that a terrorist act and demanding their imprisonment and deportation. And so I think it is. I don't think it's a matter of corruption. I just think there are a lot of people who are indoctrinated from birth and bombarded with propaganda.

Utelman, who was really the one who used physical menacing, should not even lose his job now if the situation were reversed and these were muslimmen physically menacing Jewish women in this way, I strongly believe that Ilia and many other people would be calling that a terrorist act and demanding their imprisonment and deportation. And so I think it is. I don't think it's a matter of corruption. I just think there are a lot of people who are indoctrinated from birth and bombarded with propaganda.

I noticed because I was one of them. I grew up in American.

I noticed because I was one of them. I grew up in American.

Jewish culture, who are taught to defend have loyalty to an affection for Israel above almost any other cause. And the idea that someone's going to be so certain that the reason they generally support free speech and yet in this case aren't bothered by that congressional law aren't bothered by the census is shutting down of pro Palestinian groups on the really noxious theory that now material support of terrorism doesn't mean raising funds for terrorist groups or are arming them, but it just means speech speech that supposedly advances their anti Israel, causing great violation of the First Amendment. The reason why there's this obvious shifting of standards, even of sentiments. Is because the people on the right largely revere Israel and have as one of their central causes defending Israel from criticism, and that's why they're so offended by this protest movement.

Jewish culture, who are taught to defend have loyalty to an affection for Israel above almost any other cause. And the idea that someone's going to be so certain that the reason they generally support free speech and yet in this case aren't bothered by that congressional law aren't bothered by the census is shutting down of pro Palestinian groups on the really noxious theory that now material support of terrorism doesn't mean raising funds for terrorist groups or are arming them, but it just means speech speech that supposedly advances their anti Israel, causing great violation of the First Amendment. The reason why there's this obvious shifting of standards, even of sentiments. Is because the people on the right largely revere Israel and have as one of their central causes defending Israel from criticism, and that's why they're so offended by this protest movement.

Yeah, Elia, take that question and just to give some like data to what or an anecdote to what Glenn is talking about here you tweeted recently, universities are now well aware of s JP's material support for terrorism added to the lawsuits strengthening Title six claims and adding others. You commonly do refer to these protesters as giving material support to terrorism, which means that you're kind of taking it beyond like, Okay, somebody's smashed a window and is blocking ingress and egress, so therefore they've broken these laws and they need to be arrested. To everyone who holds these views is materially supporting terrorism and is somehow backchannel financed by terrorism, and therefore needs to be entirely cracked down on.

Yeah, Elia, take that question and just to give some like data to what or an anecdote to what Glenn is talking about here you tweeted recently, universities are now well aware of s JP's material support for terrorism added to the lawsuits strengthening Title six claims and adding others. You commonly do refer to these protesters as giving material support to terrorism, which means that you're kind of taking it beyond like, Okay, somebody's smashed a window and is blocking ingress and egress, so therefore they've broken these laws and they need to be arrested. To everyone who holds these views is materially supporting terrorism and is somehow backchannel financed by terrorism, and therefore needs to be entirely cracked down on.

So how do you square that with your We have to we have to.

So how do you square that with your We have to we have to.

Be careful in our use of language.

Be careful in our use of language.

I mean, Glen Glenn is throwing lots of stuff on the wall, and I'm not here to debate Israel policy or Zionism or anything like that.

I mean, Glen Glenn is throwing lots of stuff on the wall, and I'm not here to debate Israel policy or Zionism or anything like that.

And again there's a difference between but can.

And again there's a difference between but can.

You acknowledge that it's a passionate cause of yours at least?

You acknowledge that it's a passionate cause of yours at least?

Course is as is anti communism, as is the First Amendment, as is a proper interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause, and the importance and goodness of the US Constitution and originalist interpretations of it. I'm, you know, a public intellectual quote unquote who advocates for lots of things, and I'm passionate about lots of things. But this is not about the merits of Israel's cause or the demerits of those who oppose it.

Course is as is anti communism, as is the First Amendment, as is a proper interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause, and the importance and goodness of the US Constitution and originalist interpretations of it. I'm, you know, a public intellectual quote unquote who advocates for lots of things, and I'm passionate about lots of things. But this is not about the merits of Israel's cause or the demerits of those who oppose it.

You know, I've.

You know, I've.

Spoken out a lot about DEI, which, of course, you know, I think should be ended rather than mended, because it foments so much of this illiberalism, including the anti Semitism that we've seen grow up on campus. But going back to the questions here, this is not about uh uh uh, you know, crackdown on on on on the but not on me or what have you. If there were massive encampments and demonstrations that were blocking access and violating pos educational opportunities, in violation of Title six from the pro Israeli side or some other side that I support, I would be against that as well.

Spoken out a lot about DEI, which, of course, you know, I think should be ended rather than mended, because it foments so much of this illiberalism, including the anti Semitism that we've seen grow up on campus. But going back to the questions here, this is not about uh uh uh, you know, crackdown on on on on the but not on me or what have you. If there were massive encampments and demonstrations that were blocking access and violating pos educational opportunities, in violation of Title six from the pro Israeli side or some other side that I support, I would be against that as well.

I criticized you mentioned.

I criticized you mentioned.

That the Arizona State Professor Utelman, that was a bad judgment. You know, again, he should be reprimanded, he should be criticized. I don't think he should lose a job over that's a question of gradation. Again, what's a capital offense versus jaywalking and all the rest of it. You know, students shouldn't be taken out and shot for engaging in these this kind of behavior. This is all gaslighting that conflates everything together. But to put it to put the conversation back to Title six. So there's a difference between individual rights, whether students, faculty, or non campus community members, and organizational recognition and taxpayer support on public universities. Students for Justice and PALIS and the National Organization has been functioning as the pr agency for Hamas and other terrorist organizations as recognized by the State Department. They are organizing supporting in terms of finance, but otherwise organizational support of these protests, of these encampments of the tactics. There are playbooks that they put out on October eighth, you know, before Israel went into Gaza to take advantage of the opportunity to attack Israel, because of course they're not pro Palestinian as much as they are anti Israeli. The goal is to abolish Israel at all costs, even if that hurts all the Gozzins, as we're seeing happen now. And so the question about material support of terror isn't about the individual student rights and to crack down or punish, or criminalize or deport those with improper views. It's to disestablish the organizations that are part of this greater superstructure, which again, as the Supreme Court has said, is not protected by the First Amendment. Material support of terrorism includes acting as MOS's pr agency, and so throwing SJP chapters off campus is a different question than the rights of students.

That the Arizona State Professor Utelman, that was a bad judgment. You know, again, he should be reprimanded, he should be criticized. I don't think he should lose a job over that's a question of gradation. Again, what's a capital offense versus jaywalking and all the rest of it. You know, students shouldn't be taken out and shot for engaging in these this kind of behavior. This is all gaslighting that conflates everything together. But to put it to put the conversation back to Title six. So there's a difference between individual rights, whether students, faculty, or non campus community members, and organizational recognition and taxpayer support on public universities. Students for Justice and PALIS and the National Organization has been functioning as the pr agency for Hamas and other terrorist organizations as recognized by the State Department. They are organizing supporting in terms of finance, but otherwise organizational support of these protests, of these encampments of the tactics. There are playbooks that they put out on October eighth, you know, before Israel went into Gaza to take advantage of the opportunity to attack Israel, because of course they're not pro Palestinian as much as they are anti Israeli. The goal is to abolish Israel at all costs, even if that hurts all the Gozzins, as we're seeing happen now. And so the question about material support of terror isn't about the individual student rights and to crack down or punish, or criminalize or deport those with improper views. It's to disestablish the organizations that are part of this greater superstructure, which again, as the Supreme Court has said, is not protected by the First Amendment. Material support of terrorism includes acting as MOS's pr agency, and so throwing SJP chapters off campus is a different question than the rights of students.

Well, can I just interject, I'm sorry really quickly.

Well, can I just interject, I'm sorry really quickly.

One of the student groups that has been closed on many campuses is Jewish Voices for Peace, which is a group of Jewish students, a large group who are opposed to what they regard as Israeli abuse of human rights of Palestinians, that the nile of statehood. They view the Israeli attack on Gaza as being war crimes. Do you view Jewish Voices for Peace as not just being a pr agency for Hamas but also now engaged in material support for terrorism? And can material support for terrorism a felony that I believe is a capital offense or at least provides for fifty years in jail time and like very harsh prison conditions. That's something that can be committed solely through expressing your views. You don't have to fundraise for terrorists, you don't have to provide arms to them.

One of the student groups that has been closed on many campuses is Jewish Voices for Peace, which is a group of Jewish students, a large group who are opposed to what they regard as Israeli abuse of human rights of Palestinians, that the nile of statehood. They view the Israeli attack on Gaza as being war crimes. Do you view Jewish Voices for Peace as not just being a pr agency for Hamas but also now engaged in material support for terrorism? And can material support for terrorism a felony that I believe is a capital offense or at least provides for fifty years in jail time and like very harsh prison conditions. That's something that can be committed solely through expressing your views. You don't have to fundraise for terrorists, you don't have to provide arms to them.

You just speak in a.

You just speak in a.

Way you say like, oh, I believe that you I should leave Afghanistan. And now suddenly you're guilty of aiding and embedding the Taliban because you want the asked to leave Afghanistan.

Way you say like, oh, I believe that you I should leave Afghanistan. And now suddenly you're guilty of aiding and embedding the Taliban because you want the asked to leave Afghanistan.

You could be convicted of.

You could be convicted of.

A felony for aiding and material aiding in a betting or prouding materials sport to a designated terrorist gropes. Don't you don't you think that's a pretty grave threat to free speech. If you can commit felony simply by expressing your political views about geopolitical conflicts.

A felony for aiding and material aiding in a betting or prouding materials sport to a designated terrorist gropes. Don't you don't you think that's a pretty grave threat to free speech. If you can commit felony simply by expressing your political views about geopolitical conflicts.

Nobody, nobody should be punished for their speech.

Nobody, nobody should be punished for their speech.

And that's not what the relevant statutes are doing.

And that's not what the relevant statutes are doing.

You're conflating different usage of the term materials support for terror in the law.

You're conflating different usage of the term materials support for terror in the law.

What these groups do beyond speech to be guilty of materials and materialism.

What these groups do beyond speech to be guilty of materials and materialism.

Again, you're gaslighting this is this is there's a difference between the rights of the associational rights of organizations and the rights and freedoms of individuals and what they can be prosecuted for. The question of whether s j P should be thrown can legitimately be thrown off campus is a different one than whether any individual student or organizers should or can.

Again, you're gaslighting this is this is there's a difference between the rights of the associational rights of organizations and the rights and freedoms of individuals and what they can be prosecuted for. The question of whether s j P should be thrown can legitimately be thrown off campus is a different one than whether any individual student or organizers should or can.

Be prosecuted because.

Be prosecuted because.

Taxpayer funding of organizations, which includes student recognition, access to funds, access to being able to reserve spaces, all the rights and privileges and benefits of a student group, is different than what should be done about an individual student who's speaking in.

Taxpayer funding of organizations, which includes student recognition, access to funds, access to being able to reserve spaces, all the rights and privileges and benefits of a student group, is different than what should be done about an individual student who's speaking in.

Some particular way. I am fundamentally against.

Some particular way. I am fundamentally against.

Disciplining, investigating students, faculty members, and others who engage in speech unless that rises to the level of a death threat or a excitement of violence, which is a very high bar under Supreme portraits.

Disciplining, investigating students, faculty members, and others who engage in speech unless that rises to the level of a death threat or a excitement of violence, which is a very high bar under Supreme portraits.

So speech that's actually not protected by the First Amendment, we.

So speech that's actually not protected by the First Amendment, we.

Had just a fine point on that question. So if a student is at an SJP event or hands out an SJP flyer, your take is that is not prosecutable material support for terrorism where it shouldn't be under the law.

Had just a fine point on that question. So if a student is at an SJP event or hands out an SJP flyer, your take is that is not prosecutable material support for terrorism where it shouldn't be under the law.

I'm not a criminal lawyer, but I don't think I can't imagine a prosecution for handing out pamphlets unless that pamphlet in some way, you know, incites violence or reaches that kind of standard. But from what I've seen, I don't think there's anyone who can be prosecuted for their speech in.

I'm not a criminal lawyer, but I don't think I can't imagine a prosecution for handing out pamphlets unless that pamphlet in some way, you know, incites violence or reaches that kind of standard. But from what I've seen, I don't think there's anyone who can be prosecuted for their speech in.

That kind of scenario.

That kind of scenario.

Again, the debate over s JP and the funding sources and networks and organizations is about whether they can exist as a corporate body on campus. And Glenn asked about Jewish Voices for Peace. That's a fact question, as lawyers would call it. This is why Attorney General of Virginia, Jason Millaris, among others, are investigating the various contacts between these organizations.

Again, the debate over s JP and the funding sources and networks and organizations is about whether they can exist as a corporate body on campus. And Glenn asked about Jewish Voices for Peace. That's a fact question, as lawyers would call it. This is why Attorney General of Virginia, Jason Millaris, among others, are investigating the various contacts between these organizations.

And that doesn't bother you that Jewish Voice for Our Peace are being criminally investigated. This is righting attorney generals who love Israel. Does it bother you?

And that doesn't bother you that Jewish Voice for Our Peace are being criminally investigated. This is righting attorney generals who love Israel. Does it bother you?

Jewish Voices piece seems to me like the Holy Roman Empire, and that it's neither Holy, nor Roman nor an empire.

Jewish Voices piece seems to me like the Holy Roman Empire, and that it's neither Holy, nor Roman nor an empire.

JBP is neither Jewish nor voices nor for.

JBP is neither Jewish nor voices nor for.

People cares what you think of their opinions.

People cares what you think of their opinions.

They have every right to engage in the American student I'm not.

They have every right to engage in the American student I'm not.

Saying they should be prosecuted for their speech. I'm saying if investigations reveal that they're part of a terrorist financing network and organizational structure, then they should be thrown off campus as a corporate body. This is not about the rights of students or.

Saying they should be prosecuted for their speech. I'm saying if investigations reveal that they're part of a terrorist financing network and organizational structure, then they should be thrown off campus as a corporate body. This is not about the rights of students or.

What they're saying, or whether they should be prosecuted for that, and stop conflating those kinds of issues.

What they're saying, or whether they should be prosecuted for that, and stop conflating those kinds of issues.

But first of all, they have been thrown off many campuses, and the argument is the same theory that Rondasantis use. If you accuse student student groups that are in favor of the propolic ganting cause of being guilty for material support of terrorism, which is what you have to claim in order to justify banning them from campus. Otherwise it's such an obvious violation of the First Amendment free speech if you don't have another pretext. And that's why fire dot org took such great offense to what DeSantis did in other colleges as well. If you claim they're guilty of material support for terrorism as it grounds for banning them from campus. Obviously you're accusing them of felonies. That's what material support. You're not allowed to give material support terrorism. But now if you now expand material support for terrorism. Ron DeSantis didn't claim these groups are raising money, you're providing arms. He simply said their speech is what gives support for these terrorist groups. So if you are now liable to being accused of a felony for the expression of your political views that somehow align with the interests of a terrorist group, like hey, we should leave the Middle East, or saying we should leave Ukraine and that somehow is deemed pro Russian speech. I can't think of a graver assault on the rite of free speech than criminalizing and criminalizing political activism of that sort.

But first of all, they have been thrown off many campuses, and the argument is the same theory that Rondasantis use. If you accuse student student groups that are in favor of the propolic ganting cause of being guilty for material support of terrorism, which is what you have to claim in order to justify banning them from campus. Otherwise it's such an obvious violation of the First Amendment free speech if you don't have another pretext. And that's why fire dot org took such great offense to what DeSantis did in other colleges as well. If you claim they're guilty of material support for terrorism as it grounds for banning them from campus. Obviously you're accusing them of felonies. That's what material support. You're not allowed to give material support terrorism. But now if you now expand material support for terrorism. Ron DeSantis didn't claim these groups are raising money, you're providing arms. He simply said their speech is what gives support for these terrorist groups. So if you are now liable to being accused of a felony for the expression of your political views that somehow align with the interests of a terrorist group, like hey, we should leave the Middle East, or saying we should leave Ukraine and that somehow is deemed pro Russian speech. I can't think of a graver assault on the rite of free speech than criminalizing and criminalizing political activism of that sort.

That's nonsense, and you're being disingenuous and leveling those kinds of accusations. There's a difference between the recognition of certain kinds of organizations and whether they can exist on campus. Say a chapter of the KKK or other. You know, a chapter of Hamas Quahamas. We're the we're the Hamas student group, and we promote terrorism. Right, So there are rules of analysis and structures for defining what kinds of organizations, particularly in public taxpayer funded institution, can or cannot exist on campus.

That's nonsense, and you're being disingenuous and leveling those kinds of accusations. There's a difference between the recognition of certain kinds of organizations and whether they can exist on campus. Say a chapter of the KKK or other. You know, a chapter of Hamas Quahamas. We're the we're the Hamas student group, and we promote terrorism. Right, So there are rules of analysis and structures for defining what kinds of organizations, particularly in public taxpayer funded institution, can or cannot exist on campus.

Which is a separate question that if any.

Which is a separate question that if any.

Particular individual is doing something that rises to the level of incitement of violence and can should be disciplined or punished. Another way, stop putting voice words in my mouth and trying to make me out to look like I'm trying to punish people for speech, which I'm not.

Particular individual is doing something that rises to the level of incitement of violence and can should be disciplined or punished. Another way, stop putting voice words in my mouth and trying to make me out to look like I'm trying to punish people for speech, which I'm not.

There is a difference.

There is a difference.

I described described.

I described described.

Context, I described.

Context, I described.

Defense.

Defense.

You finished.

You finished.

There's a difference between uh giving a speech saying Israel is being illegitimate, They're engaged in genocide, this is all wrong, this is bad. We shouldn't support them, and going to a helll or a habbad house or the Center for Jewish Life on campus and chanting from the river to the sea Israel should be gone. Kill all the Jews, any Jew you see today, punch them in the face. There are differences between these kinds of scenarios.

There's a difference between uh giving a speech saying Israel is being illegitimate, They're engaged in genocide, this is all wrong, this is bad. We shouldn't support them, and going to a helll or a habbad house or the Center for Jewish Life on campus and chanting from the river to the sea Israel should be gone. Kill all the Jews, any Jew you see today, punch them in the face. There are differences between these kinds of scenarios.

No one claim those groups were doing that. No one claimed defantas, didn't claim those groups were doing that.

No one claim those groups were doing that. No one claimed defantas, didn't claim those groups were doing that.

They weren't doing that, And yet you defended Ronda san.

They weren't doing that, And yet you defended Ronda san.

Let's turn on the facts and as if those groups do in investigations by whether DeSantis' lawyers or Mires or anybody else. If again, these are factual investigations, These aren't sham investigations. If the dots are connected such that the standard for material support of terror is established, then yes they should be okay.

Let's turn on the facts and as if those groups do in investigations by whether DeSantis' lawyers or Mires or anybody else. If again, these are factual investigations, These aren't sham investigations. If the dots are connected such that the standard for material support of terror is established, then yes they should be okay.

Job, So, Elliott, you're supportive of a criminal investigation into Jewish Voice for piece based on suspicion raised by their speech, and so let's turn it around. What if a pro Palestine attorney general somewhere in the United States said that, you know what, I've discovered some genocidal language from some APAC donors. I've also discovered that some donors to a PAC also give to violent settlers that the United States has even sanctioned recently. So I'm launching a criminal probe into a PAC. Would you say, hey, Look, this is a fact based investigation. This is not an infringement on ape's right to free expression whatsoever. Let's just see what the investigation finds.

Job, So, Elliott, you're supportive of a criminal investigation into Jewish Voice for piece based on suspicion raised by their speech, and so let's turn it around. What if a pro Palestine attorney general somewhere in the United States said that, you know what, I've discovered some genocidal language from some APAC donors. I've also discovered that some donors to a PAC also give to violent settlers that the United States has even sanctioned recently. So I'm launching a criminal probe into a PAC. Would you say, hey, Look, this is a fact based investigation. This is not an infringement on ape's right to free expression whatsoever. Let's just see what the investigation finds.

Look, Attorney's general needs to meet certain standards to be able to launch investigations, and I'm not sure if it's a criminal investigation again, to kick an organization off campus.

Look, Attorney's general needs to meet certain standards to be able to launch investigations, and I'm not sure if it's a criminal investigation again, to kick an organization off campus.

I think that's a civil investigation.

I think that's a civil investigation.

You're not necessarily charging anyone, but regardless, to launch an investigation, if you have probable cause to do so, or whatever the standard is in understate.

You're not necessarily charging anyone, but regardless, to launch an investigation, if you have probable cause to do so, or whatever the standard is in understate.

Law, go ahead and do so. I don't think something like that is going to pass the smell test. It would seem politically odd.

Law, go ahead and do so. I don't think something like that is going to pass the smell test. It would seem politically odd.

But if if an attorney general wants to stick his neck out and claim something like.

But if if an attorney general wants to stick his neck out and claim something like.

That, yeah, I mean you're right that it won't happen. That's not the point. It's clear it would never happen.

That, yeah, I mean you're right that it won't happen. That's not the point. It's clear it would never happen.

So one thing I wanted to get at here. It seems like one of the central disagreements is even over definitions, and that's one of the central disagreements in American politics period. So Ilia mentioned from the River to the Sea is a huge point of disagreement, and with the time we have left. Glenn mentioned earlier the Anty Semitism Awareness Act, which a bunch of Republicans supported in Congress, some dissented from it. I'm super curious to get your take on it, Ilia, But I also want to ask, you know, when we're talking about what material support for terrorism is, what we're talking about when we're talking about how to define violent language or language that goes against student code of conduct towards.

So one thing I wanted to get at here. It seems like one of the central disagreements is even over definitions, and that's one of the central disagreements in American politics period. So Ilia mentioned from the River to the Sea is a huge point of disagreement, and with the time we have left. Glenn mentioned earlier the Anty Semitism Awareness Act, which a bunch of Republicans supported in Congress, some dissented from it. I'm super curious to get your take on it, Ilia, But I also want to ask, you know, when we're talking about what material support for terrorism is, what we're talking about when we're talking about how to define violent language or language that goes against student code of conduct towards.

Bigotry, we have and Ilia.

Bigotry, we have and Ilia.

You've seen how that's been wielded against conservative students, how that's been wielded against sort of dissenters from wokeism. So even just having and Glenn's point about this protecting, you know, sort of free speech maximalism is so that we have humility about when those definitions are right, when those definitions are wrong, and how we kind of come to a place of.

You've seen how that's been wielded against conservative students, how that's been wielded against sort of dissenters from wokeism. So even just having and Glenn's point about this protecting, you know, sort of free speech maximalism is so that we have humility about when those definitions are right, when those definitions are wrong, and how we kind of come to a place of.

Consensus on this.

Consensus on this.

So using the definition and the Anti Semitism Awareness Act a lot of Republicans that I think is like twenty in the House, not nearly as much as it should be flagged that and said, listen, this definition is wildly broad. It's way too broad, such as it would implicate even potentially Christians the New Testament, I think. Is one thing that Tucker Carlson argued in this case. So Ilia is the Anti Semitism Awareness Act is Republican support for the Anti Semitism Awareness Act hypocritical is the definition of anti semitism in that bill too.

So using the definition and the Anti Semitism Awareness Act a lot of Republicans that I think is like twenty in the House, not nearly as much as it should be flagged that and said, listen, this definition is wildly broad. It's way too broad, such as it would implicate even potentially Christians the New Testament, I think. Is one thing that Tucker Carlson argued in this case. So Ilia is the Anti Semitism Awareness Act is Republican support for the Anti Semitism Awareness Act hypocritical is the definition of anti semitism in that bill too.

Broad, I don't think. So here's why. On the terms.

Broad, I don't think. So here's why. On the terms.

Of the Triple A the Anti Semitism Awareness Act. It does not expand the authority of the Secretary of Education. It doesn't change the standards of the Department of Education, the Office Civil Rights to investigate claims of harassment or other actionable discrimination. And it does not change, diminish and fringe on the rights protected under any other provisions of law.