IN YOUR FACE ANTI-SEMITISM
ANTI-SEMITIC RALLYS
By: Lenore S. Davis, Esq.
In my last semester of law school, spring of 1989, I had to write an essay on one of the cases before the Supreme Court for its next session. I chose Texas v. Johnson, a case regarding whether burning of the flag was free speech.
I didn’t do well, frankly, because my professor thought my arguments and how I applied legal precedence was incorrect.
In sum, from my research, I thought that the Supreme Court would decide that burning the flag was protected free speech. Burning the flag is a very sui generis act, which is an act that speaks volumes, which words cannot. It is a supreme act of rebellion. A statement, that in this day and age is at the fore and arguably comparable to NFL football player, Colin Kaepernick’s refusal to stand when the national anthem is played before football games.
What I set forth simply is that burning the flag is a protected free speech right. BUT there are exceptions to the permissive use of this form of speech, as I wrote, and that is when the flag is burned in a place which is meant to incite, e.g., a gathering of veterans. One does not have a right of speech, if it is meant to incite. A neutral place in this day and age might be in front of the United States Capitol, or in front of the United Nations. It makes an impactful statement, without inciting those who would be sensitive to your message, e.g., falsely screaming there’s a fire in a packed moviehouse. Just simply inappropriate to the enth degree.
My position was vindicated by the Supreme Court which sided with my decision and my reasoning.
In my view, burning the flag and its free speech is analogous to rallies and their free speech message. Yes, everyone should have the right to free speech, but not when it is in a venue that is meant to incite. The Klu Klux Klan should not be able to rally at a Martin Luther King, Jr. commemoration.
I believe when neo-nazis wanted to march in Skokie Illinois, which had an above-average number of holocaust survivors, the court in Illinois was dead wrong in permitting them to do so. Clearly, it was meant to incite.
When the Palestinians and Naturei Karta, groups which want to destroy Israel want to rally at the Salute to Israel Parade, it is wrong to permit them to do so within view of said parade, they aim to incite.
Permitting any rally in an educational environment or university setting is wrong. Students are there to learn, are impressionable, and should not be made to feel threatened by those who spew destruction and anti-semitism under the cloak of free speech and exchange of ideas.
Should we permit neo-nazis on campus. Should we permit Klu Klux Klan on campus. Would we permit anyone to shout out death to another person? The anti-bds people are no better. Their hostility on campus is no better than others in the group mentioned in this paragraph, and Jews all over the country are feeling the heat of this hostility and hatred.
Students are sponges soaking up the thoughts and opinions of those around them. They bring those thoughts and views home, and they take root. Foul mouth has become acceptable.
Free speech stops, where others feel scared and threatened. As I told my children when they were younger, a joke is only funny, if both people laugh.
Rallies are important for their dissemination of a panoply of thoughts, ideas, concepts, but courts are VERY WRONG in permitting rallies by those with dissenting ideas, those who will suffer harm as a result.
As flag burning is a unique form of language in the appropriate forum and NOT in an inappropriate forum, we have to understand that rallies, and all forms of free speech need to be regulated and limited if permitting said speech is meant to incite those who are attending school and living peacefully.
Finally, we are wrong for permitting all to form groups and rally and speak, especially those with a known, proven history of violence and hatred, e.g., neo-Nazis, klu klux klan, skinheads etc. If a group has a proven track record of violence against innocents, they are no better than Hamas, should be branded as terrorists, denied legal opportunity to congregate, and most assuredly, denied a platform.
How can we be so hypocritical asking social platforms like Facebook to govern free speech, when government and courts alike have permitted these groups over decades to feel they have a right to congregate and are not disbanded and denied physical opportunities to platform their prejudice platforms.
How has Hamas, which is on the international terrorist list, who was voted in by the Palestinians for espousing their view that the State of Israel must be destroyed, been able to promote their rabid anti-Israel rhetoric and policies, including BDS. If someone is pro-Palestine, then they are pro-Palestinian government, i.e., Hamas, and are no better than Germans who voted in Hitler knowing Hitler’s views and opinions.
How can we and the international community even entertain a pro-Palestine anything more than we would espouse an anti-black, anti-woman, anti-Jew platform. Wake up and smell the coffee. We voted in three Congresswomen who are rabidly pro-Palestinian which means equally anti-Jews.
The liberal pendulum has swung too far, let freedom ring without cracking the bell for all.