Civil rights require the rule of law but universities are terrified of enforcing the law

From Where Free Speech Ends and Lawbreaking Begins by Ilya Shapiro.  The subheading is The First Amendment does not give carte blanche to intimidation and harassment, writes Ilya Shapiro.

When I first read the headline, I almost skipped the article because it sounded like some pro-censorship mainstream media piece wanting to censor speech of which it did not approve.  But then I saw it was by Shapiro who is an ardent free speech advocate and so I read it.  His article is basically a refresher as to what is covered by free speech and what constitutes a crime.  Everyone ought to read it as a good philosophical refresher (or introduction for some) as well as a practical guideline as to how to uphold free speech and how to protect it by enforcing the law when people go beyond the bounds of free speech.  

Much of the repugnance of the pro-Hamas demonstrations is not just their message but that the universities and municipalities are tolerating unlawful behavior which infringes the free speech of others.  The solution is to enforce the law.  

Pro-Palestinian groups have harassed and even assaulted Jewish students; protesters have interrupted courses and taken over buildings; Ivy League professors have called Hamas’s attack “exhilarating” and “awesome”; students have torn down posters of missing Israeli children; others have chanted—and even projected onto university buildings—slogans, like “from the river to the sea,” “globalize the intifada,” and “glory to our martyrs.”

In response to such activities, universities have suspended or banned student groups like Students for Justice in Palestine. Alumni have pulled their donations and publicly stated that they won’t hire students who signed letters blaming Israel for the massacre. Republican lawmakers have suggested revoking the student visas of those participating in anti-Israel protests.

This obviously sets up the challenge.  We want maximal support of free speech within the law which requires extreme patience with noxious speech.  There is always a temptation to encroach on free speech when it is noxious speech.  Tempting as it might be, that should always be avoided.

Instead, the focus should be, as Shapiro highlights, on policing where free speech shifts into illegal behavior and violence.

Much of what we’ve witnessed on campuses over the past few weeks is not, in fact, speech, but conduct designed specifically to harass, intimidate, and terrorize Jews. Other examples involve disruptive speech that can properly be regulated by school rules. Opposing or taking action against such behavior in no way violates the core constitutional principle that the government can’t punish you for expressing your beliefs.

Shaprio then goes through several categories such as the distinction between speech and conduct; speech versus disruption; professorial free speech versus creating hostile educational environments; the rights of foreign nationals versus those of nationals; university acceptance of illegal protest behavior despite its abrogation of Title VI Civil Rights responsibilities, etc.  

It is worth reading the whole article as a refresher, for all the links, and because all the philosophical issues are tied to real incidents at universities over the past month.