Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 5/9/24: Glenn Greenwald Vs Ilya Shapiro On Campus Crackdowns - CounterPoints Debate

Episode Date: May 10, 2024

Ryan and Emily host a debate on free speech at college campus protests between Glenn Greenwald and Ilya Shapiro.Glenn Greenwald: https://twitter.com/ggreenwaldIlya Shapiro: https://twitter.com/ishapiro To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: https://breakingpoints.supercast.com/ Merch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. are more than welcome to listen in. I knew nothing about brunch. She was a terrible girlfriend, but she put me on to brunch. To hear this and more, open your free iHeart app, search Good Moms, Bad Choices, and listen now. Over the years of making my true crime podcast,

Hell and Gone, I've learned no town is too small for murder. I'm Katherine Townsend. I've heard from hundreds of people across the country with an unsolved murder in their community. I was calling Townsend. I've heard from hundreds of people across the country with an unsolved murder in their community. I was calling

about the murder of my husband. The murderer is still out there. Each week, I investigate a new case. If there is a case we should hear about, call 678-744-6145. Listen to Hell and Gone Murder Line on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever

you get your podcasts. I always had to be so good, no one could ignore me. Carve my path with data and drive. But some people only see who I am on paper. The paper ceiling, the limitations from degree screens to stereotypes that are holding back over 70 million stars. Workers skilled through alternative routes rather than a bachelor's degree. It's time for skills to speak for themselves. Find resources for breaking through barriers at taylorpapersilling.org. Brought to you by Opportunity at Work and the Ad Council. Hey guys, Ready or Not 2024 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, add staff, give you guys the best independent coverage that is possible. 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. 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 right of free speech than 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 Jews,

any Jew you see today, punch them in the face. No one claimed 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. BreakingPoints.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. 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. 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 going to have to deal with that. By we, you mean you. Yeah. Yes, me. We're moderators, but we have an opinion. So it's okay. It's okay. It's okay. And these are grownups. They're going to be able to handle it. So let's introduce these grownups. 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 find and subscribe to your stuff? Yeah, we do a lot of written original journalism on Locals, which is the sort of sub stack of the Roman platform. So people can find us there as well. Great. And then Ilya Shapiro, his current title was Senior Fellow and Director of Constitutional Studies

at the Manhattan Institute. Ilya and Glenn, thanks so much for joining us. 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 fun. Well, that's... I mean, yeah, I mean, pro-censorship, anti-law, pro-crime position. Right. Let's sort this out. See, we're going to suss all of this out. Yeah, exactly.

Because these are some genuinely interesting questions. And to begin, we have a video of some protests that happened at MIT recently, where students are overrunning a fence that was erected to keep them out of an encampment. Let's roll this tape. Break my brick! Blow my wall! Break my brick! Blow my wall! This wall has to fall! This wall has to fall! Break my brick! Blow my wall! Break my brick! Come on! Come on! Shut it down! Shut it down!

Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Shut it down! Again, so if you were just listening to that, you were listening to students just get rid of offense, basically, it was keeping them out of an encampment at MIT. Ilya, 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 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 7th, when the president of MIT, Sally Kornblith, was in that infamous congressional hearing. So, Ilya, let's start with you. Expel and harass the students who tore down that fence there. Flesh out that point for us. uh i'm basically with ben sass the president of

university of florida uh the dear meyer the president of vanderbilt uh who've been putting out op-eds and stating that they are broadly protected protective of speech uh as am 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 Glenn I don't think anybody believes that there should be no laws But what's 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, defense of 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, Ilya is a fanatical supporter of Israel and the protesters who's the crackdown on whom he's defending are 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 7th, 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 nonpartisan free speech organization in the country, FIRE.org, said was not only a grave assault on the First Amendment free speech rights of pro-Palestinian students, but was such an obvious and glaring violation of the First Amendment that they wrote a letter to university administrators urging them to ignore the order by Governor DeSantis. There have been a lot of those kinds of attacks well before these encampments arose. And of course, before October 7th, one of the most common forms of censorship on political campuses and elsewhere were attempts

to silent Jewish students. There have been 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.org has been defending these people for a long time. So a lot of conservatives wave the free speech banner when it comes to targeting conservative speech, and I do too, I defend that speech, and yet suddenly abandoned 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 would even say most, recently has come from pro-Palestinian, pro-Israel counter protesters. They showed up at a camp 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 99% of the protests that have been taking place on campus have been peaceful. And the 1% that wasn't was things like the UCLA one. And, you know, there are a lot of protests that use civil disobedience. that conservatives most revere and most champion and herald and defended was the truckers 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. They blocked streets. They prevented cars from passing all the time in Toronto. And yet the crackdown on those protests was deemed tyrannical by conservatives because in that case they agreed with the cause. So I think the context here is important. Of course, if 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 am not comfortable with, to say, okay, you cannot do that, I'm fine with that as well. But there has been a overall very potent movement to suppress and censor criticism of Israel or pro-Palestinian speech for a long time. And a great part of what's happening now is a byproduct of that vision. So Ilya, you've been an outspoken critic

of a lot of the crackdowns on speech on campuses towards the right in recent years that Glenn was alluding to there. Why are you not 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 pro-Palestine 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 for Individual Rights and Expression. I spoke at their big national gala last year. And, you know, I agree with them 99% of the time. I don't think I agree with myself 100% of the time, but Bayard 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 Blinken's 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 Mahatma 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 that 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, 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 I try to be principled as much as the next guy and we can debate the DeSantis order about Students for Justice in And, you know, those on the left who on October

6th 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. Americans have the right to do so. But again, we have to be clear about what we're dealing with with these protests, these encampments. If you're violating neutral rules, that's a different situation than engaging in free speech. And again, those university officials, whatever their 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 Ilya a question quickly, if you guys don't mind?

Go for it. We have a long tradition of distinguishing between brave acts of law 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 not treat as the sort of crime that merits a thousand police officers being sent in. But if you don't recognize that kind of a distinction, and I am interested in hearing your views of all the other censorship examples I mentioned against pro-Palestinian protesters. But let me ask you your views on the Canadian protests, which again, became a huge cause celebre 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 truckers protests was they occupied roads and didn't let anyone pass. Did you support the Trudeau government's crackdown on them on the grounds that, well, technically they're violating the law by blocking traffic and therefore they should go to prison? Even though I'm Canadian, I sort of go both ways on the 49th parallel. I'm a dual citizen.

I don't I'm not fully up to speed on Canadian laws in that circumstance. was criticized not for enforcing simple rules against blocking public highways, but for invoking an emergency act and just taking ultra various 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 or what have you, then those neutral rules should have been enforced against them. And even though I did agree 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.

Ilya, I feel like you might be caught in a little bit of a contradiction here. So I want to see if I'm right about that, 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 fines or some type of, and civil in the word of like, just gentle crackdown by Trudeau. Or police arrest. Or police arrest. Police arrest. Police arrest 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 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 okay with a gentle crackdown on the truckers, but a brutal crackdown on the Columbia protesters. And why the distinction there? No, that's putting a lot of words in my mouth, a lot of adjectives. I try not to use adjectives.

It's weak writing, really. But these are apples and oranges, the trucker situation and what's going on on campus. You know, different countries, different laws in play, different issues. Look, there's a difference between a capital crime and the death penalty and, you know, a misdemeanor, jaywalking. And there are gradations in between. Obviously, different crimes deserve different punishments. Or in the campus context, certain things, you know, 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, the Chicago trifecta, does great things. It let the encampment continue for a few days and then ultimately cleared it out as well. 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 a conversation continue for a few days. Whatever. We can Monday morning quarterback all day, but it's not about the gentleness of 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 mere violations of the university code of responsibilities, but 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, quote unquote, mostly peaceful protest or what have you, or mostly peaceful occupation of buildings and disruptions of educational missions. Columbia 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 is doing better. Princeton, my undergraduate alma mater, is doing better in 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 Sasse 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. Over the past six years of making my true crime podcast hell and gone, I've learned one thing. No town is too small for murder. I'm Katherine Townsend. I've received hundreds of messages from people across the country

begging for help with unsolved murders. I was calling about the murder of my husband at the cold case. They've never found her. And it haunts me to this day. The murderer is still out there. Every week on Hell and Gone Murder Line, I dig into a new case, bringing the skills I've learned as a journalist and private investigator to ask the questions no one else is asking. Police really didn't care to even try. She was still somebody's mother. She was still somebody's daughter. She was still somebody's sister. There's so many questions that we've never gotten any kind of answers for. If you have a case you'd like me to look into, call the Hell and Gone Murder Line at 678-744-6145. Listen to Hell and Gone Murder Line on the iHeartRadio app,

Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I always had to be so good no one could ignore me. Carve my path with data and drive. But some people only see who I am on paper. The paper ceiling. The limitations from degree screens to stereotypes that are holding back over 70 million stars. Workers skilled through alternative routes

rather than a bachelor's degree. It's time for skills to speak for themselves. Find resources for breaking through barriers at taylorpapersilling.org, brought to you by Opportunity at Work and the Ad Council. She was a decorated veteran, a Marine who saved her comrades, a hero. She was stoic, modest, tough, someone who inspired people. Everyone thought they knew her, until they didn't. I remember sitting on her couch

and asking her, is this real? Is this real? Is this real? Is this real? I just couldn't wrap my head around what kind of person would do that to another person that was getting treatment, that was, you know, dying. This is a story all about trust and about a woman named Sarah Kavanaugh. I've always been told I'm a really good listener, right? And I maximized that while I was lying. Listen to Deep Cover, The Truth About Sarah on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts,

or wherever you get your podcasts. So let me kick that to Glenn, actually, because there's something interesting. And 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 mater, George Washington University, there was a leader, I actually don't know if they 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, etc.

So, Glenn, what is your sort of, where's the line for you as to what's protected speech, what's protected civil disobedience, not protected civil disobedience, 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

that can't even walk outside without being violently attacked. The one example that spread all over the media and that was promoted by Barry Weiss's Free Press ended up being a complete hoax. This Jewish student who has been a longtime pro-Israel 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 symptom 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 hate crimes hoax, but writ 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 law.

It's such 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. Of course, we're going to be more inclined to support crackdowns on and censorship of the views that we most hate. And again, Ilya, who was a free speech champion in a lot of contexts, is somebody who is a fanatical devotee to Israel. He really believes that Israel has to be protected 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 happen 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 referenced earlier a study, not social media anecdotes, but a study that said 99% of campus encampments and protests have been entirely nonviolent. One of the examples of violence 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 women by 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 in any of these incidents. Ilya went onto 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 Udelman, who was really the one who used physical menacing, should not even lose his job. Now, if the situation were reversed, and these were Muslim men physically menacing Jewish women in this way, I strongly believe that Ilya and many other people

would be calling that a terrorist act and demanding their imprisonment and deportation. And so 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 know this because I was one of them. I grew up in American Jewish culture, who are taught to defend and have loyalty to and 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 DeSantis' 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 arming them, but it just means speech, speech that supposedly advances their anti-Israel cause, a grave 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, Ilya, take that question. And just to give some data to what, or an anecdote to what Glenn is talking about here. You tweeted recently, universities are now well aware of SJP's material support for terrorism, add it to the lawsuits, strengthening Title VI 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, OK, somebody 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 back channel financed by terrorism and therefore needs to be entirely cracked down on. So how how how do you square that with your free speech advocacy? We have to be careful in our use of language. I mean, 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 you acknowledge that it's a passionate cause of yours at least? Of course. 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 U.S. Constitution and originalist interpretations of it. I'm a public intellectual, quote-un quote, 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. I've spoken out a lot about DEI, which of course I think should be ended rather than mended because it foments so much of this illiberalism, including the antisemitism that we've seen grow up on campus. 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 a crackdown on thee, but not on me or what have you. If there were massive

encampments and demonstrations that were blocking access and violating people's educational opportunities in violation of Title VI from the pro-Israeli side or some other side that I support, I would be against that as well. I criticized – you mentioned the Arizona State Professor Udallman. That was a bad judgment. Again, he should be reprimanded. He should be criticized. I don't think he should lose his job over it. That's a question of gradation. Again, what's a capital offense versus jaywalking and all the rest of it?

Students shouldn't be taken out and shot for engaging in this kind of behavior. This is all gaslighting that conflates everything together. But to put the conversation back to Title VI, 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 in Palestine, 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 8th, 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 Gazans, 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 Hamas's PR agency. And so throwing off SJP chapters off campus is a different question than the rights of students. Can I just interject there? 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, the denial 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 50 years in jail time and 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 way. You say like, oh, I believe the US should leave Afghanistan. And now suddenly you're guilty of aiding and abetting the Taliban because you want the U.S. to leave Afghanistan. You could be convicted of a felony for aiding and abetting or providing material support to a designated terrorist group. Don't you think that's a pretty grave threat to free speech if you can commit felonies simply by expressing your political views about geopolitical conflicts? Absolutely.

Nobody should be punished for their speech, and that's not what the relevant statutes are doing. You're conflating different usage of the term material support for terror in the law. What did these groups do beyond speech to be guilty of material support for terrorism? Again, you're gaslighting. 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 SJP should be thrown can legitimately be thrown off campus is a different one than whether any individual student or organizer should or can 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 some particular particular way i am fundamentally against uh uh disciplining investigating uh students faculty members and others who engage in speech unless that rises to the level of a death threat or a incitement of violence which is a very high bar under supreme court jurors so speech that's actually not protected by the first amendment well yeah 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, or 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 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. Again, the debate over SJP 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 Meares, among others, are investigating the various contacts between these organizations. And that doesn't bother you? That Jewish Voices for Peace are being criminally investigated by right-wing attorney generals who love Israel and now are being criminally investigated for their activism?

That doesn't bother you? Jewish Voices for Peace seems to me like the Holy Roman Empire in that it's neither a holy nor Roman or an empire. JVP is neither Jewish nor Voices nor for Peace. Who cares what you think of their opinions? They have every right to engage in political activism. They're American students. I was making a rhetorical point. 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 what they're saying or whether they should be prosecuted for that and stop conflating those kinds of issues. No, but Ron, first of all, they have been thrown off many campuses. And the argument is the same theory that Ron DeSantis used. If you accuse student groups that are in favor of the pro-Palestinian 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.org took such great offense to what DeSantis did and other colleges as well. If you claim they're guilty of material support for terrorism as a 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 for terrorism.

But if you now expand material support for terrorism, Ron DeSantis didn't claim these groups are raising money or 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 right of free speech than 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, Kwa Hamas. 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 institutions, can or cannot exist on campus, 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 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. I described the I described Governor DeSantis' rationale. Context matters. I described Governor DeSantis' rationale that you defended.

Let me finish. 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 going to a Hillel or a Chabad 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 claimed those groups were doing that. No one claimed, DeSantis didn't claim those groups were doing that. They weren't doing that.

And yet you defended Ron DeSantis' banning of these groups. These questions turn on the facts. As if those groups do in investigations by whether DeSantis' lawyers or Miari's 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 kicked off. So Ilya, you're supportive of a criminal investigation into Jewish Voice for Peace 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 AIPAC donors. I've also discovered that

some donors to AIPAC also give to violent settlers that the United States has even sanctioned recently. So I'm launching a criminal probe into AIPAC. Would you say, hey, look, this is a fact-based investigation. This is not an infringement on AIPAC's right to free expression whatsoever. Let's just see what the investigation finds. Look, attorneys general need 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. You're not necessarily charging anyone.

But regardless, to launch an investigation, if you have probable cause to do so, whatever the standard is in under state 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 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. Over the past six years of making my true crime podcast, Hell and Gone, I've learned one thing. No town is too small for murder. I'm Katherine Townsend.

I've received hundreds of messages from people across the country begging for help with unsolved murders. I was calling about the murder of my husband at the cold case. They've never found her. And it haunts me to this day. The murderer is still out there. Every week on Hell and Gone Murder Line, I dig into a new case, bringing the skills I've learned as a journalist and private investigator to ask the questions no one else is asking.

Police really didn't care to even try. She was still somebody's mother. She was still somebody's daughter. She was still somebody's sister. There's so many questions that we've never gotten any kind of answers for. If you have a case you'd like me to look into, call the Hell and Gone Murder Line at 678-744-6145. Listen to Hell and Gone Murder Line on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

I always had to be so good, no one could ignore me. Carve my path with data and drive. radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Workers skilled through alternative routes rather than a bachelor's degree. It's time for skills to speak for themselves. Find resources for breaking through barriers at taylorpapersilling.org. Brought to you by Opportunity at Work and the Ad Council. She was a decorated veteran. A Marine who saved her comrades. A hero. She was stoic, modest, tough. Someone who inspired people.

Everyone thought they knew her. Until they didn't. I remember sitting on her couch and asking her, is this real? Is this real? Is this real? Is this real? I just couldn't wrap my head around what kind of person would do that to another person that was getting treatment, that was, you know, dying? This is a story all about trust and about a woman named Sarah Kavanaugh. I've always been told I'm a really good listener, right? And I maximized that while I was lying. Listen to Deep Cover, The Truth About Sarah on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. disagreements is even over definitions. And that's one of the central disagreements in American politics, period. So Ilya mentioned from the river to the sea is a huge point of

disagreement. And with the time we have left, Glenn mentioned earlier the Anti-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, Ilya. 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 Ilya, 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 can kind of come to a place of consensus on this. So using the definition in the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, a lot of Republicans, I think it's like 20 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, Ilya, 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 of the AAA, the Antisemitism 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 of Civil Rights, to investigate claims of

harassment or other actionable discrimination. And it does not change, diminish, infringe on the rights protected under any other provisions of law. That is, all the AAA does is to define anti-Semitism for purposes of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which already has, for a long time, prohibited discrimination actions, not speech, based on race, color, national origin, which the Department of Education of both parties have long understood to include ancestry and ethnicity. So for a long time, we haven't had a definition of anti-Semitism or what kinds of actions might be discriminatory for being anti-Semitic. Again, actions, not speech. And the AAA doesn't create any new investigative authorities.

It doesn't expand powers, all of that. So there's no hypocrisy here. It adopts the kind of gold standard definition of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. And the only that has adherence from scholars across the ideological spectrum that is against negative perceptions of Jews, just like for purposes of racism, we have negative perceptions of people of different races and what have you. So the AAA, this is a common myth

that it's somehow going after anyone who speaks out against Jews or criticizes the government of Israel. Or even as you said, Tucker Carlson's absurd claim that teaching the New Testament somehow now violates the law. That's completely wrong. What it does is define antisemitism

for purposes of Title VI, which already makes taking actions based on anti-Semitism illegal. No, I'm sorry. Can I please interject there? I just cannot abide that claim, which is so wildly misleading about what this law does. Anti-Semitism and racism. It's all about misleading claims, Glenn. Okay, very good argument. I'm about to actually give you a substantive explanation as to why you're being misleading,

not just call you that. The reason this law is so controversial, it got 70 no votes among Democrats, 21 no votes among House Republicans, is because anti-Semitism was already part of anti-discrimination law. What it did was it wildly expanded the definition, which came from Israel that began pressuring the West to adopt this massively expansive view. It incorporated certain examples. So let me give you the examples of what is now deemed illegal anti-discrimination for anti-discrimination laws or anti-Semitism for anti-discrimination laws in places like educational institutions.

You cannot say that the crimes of the Israeli government in war has similarities to what the Nazis did. You're allowed to say that's about the United States. You can say what the United States did in Iraq is similar to what the Nazis, you just can't say it about Israel. You are not allowed to say that particular Jewish individuals like Ilya have such extreme devotion to Israel that they have been instilled with since birth, that they're willing to even sacrifice American civil liberties in defense of this foreign country that they've been indoctrinated to revere and protect. You may not agree with that assessment about someone like Ben Shapiro or Barry Weiss or Ilya, but you're now banned from saying it

as anti-discrimination. You're not allowed to say that your historical understanding of the world is that Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus Christ. You're not allowed to criticize Israel in a way that is considered to be a double standard, meaning you apply to Israel standards that you don't apply to other countries. You're allowed to criticize the United States in the form of double standard. You're allowed to criticize China or Korea or Argentina or Peru or Norway or any other country in the world. You're just not allowed to criticize Israel in a way that's deemed a double standard. This is a law that takes a massive amount of

obviously valid and constitutionally protected opinions, the ones I just went through and many more that are explicitly in the law. And it makes it now an offense under anti-discrimination law to express those opinions. And this has been going on for so long. I mean, it is not false. And I posted many times the language of the law that explicitly incorporates the examples under this Holocaust Remembrance Law. And the examples are incorporated into federal law, every single one of them by the explicit text of the law that was just passed. Those examples are unbelievably assaultive of free speech, limiting free speech of the rights of American citizens to protect

this foreign country in a way that no other country and no other group of people other than Jews enjoys this protection. The other thing I would say is that as I've said, this has been going on for a long time. When there was this movement to get you fired from Georgetown, I spoke up in your defense, not because I agreed with the views that you had expressed that were so controversial, I absolutely did not, but because I thought it was so endangering of academic freedom to demand the firing of professors at faculties in the United States for opinions they expressed because other people found them offensive. Have you ever once in your life, Ilya, spoke up in defense of professors who are fired or denied tenure because of their criticism of Israel?

People like Norman Finkelstein, who got blocked from tenure, even though the tenure committee recommended tenure based on his scholarship because Alan Dershowitz went on a crusade against him, or Stephen Salacia, who had tenure at the University of Illinois, and it was revoked, because in 2014, he was harshly criticizing the state of Israel for their bombing of Gaza. Have you ever once defended a critic of Israel or a pro-Palestinian speaker for the free speech abridgments that they've suffered? Faculty should not be punished or disciplined or investigated for their extramural speech i'll i'll say that that's not my business i don't work for have you defended any specific

people i've only been in this business and kind of elevated into this discourse since i had my own incident with georgetown in that time i'm not sure what's gone on but certainly you know the university professors at cornell and columbia and whatnot it have celebrated Hamas. Maybe it's bad judgment to have hired them in the first place, but they certainly shouldn't be fired now for giving a speech to that effect. But going back to Glenn's misleading invocations of the accurate examples that he quotes from the IHRA definition of antisemitism, neither the AAA nor Title VI, as properly interpreted, regulates, punishes, or criminalizes speech. What it says that if you hold those kinds of opinions

and act on them in the way that discriminates against Jews, students, faculty, or otherwise, who you admit, who you hire, making decisions in the context of an educational institution, then you are acting improperly in violation of the law. Giving a speech saying that applying a double standard to Israel or criticizing me or calling me fanatical

or whatever does not by itself violate any sort of law, unless you're improperly, unless you're one of these DEI bureaucrats that wants to impose speech codes and use intersectional hierarchies to go after people. And we can have a debate about whether Title VI, either as written or as enforced, goes too far, whether the Civil Rights Act altogether goes too far

in a libertarian way. There are valid ways to have that debate. But the AAA, the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, does not criminalize, punish, or otherwise regulate speech. And if it's interpreted to do so, I would be happy to take that case, because that's a slam-dunk win for anyone who's being disciplined for anti-Semitic speech. So let's, on this note, Glenn, take some time and we'll do closings for each. Yeah, I've got one more question.

Oh, Ryan, you do? Oh, yeah. Ilya, and I'm sure you know this history pretty well. We could have spent a lot of time talking about the Woolworth sit-ins and other civil disobedience. But let's go back to the 1930s at Harvard. Harvard, to its great shame, as you know, had a lot of connections to the Nazi regime. A lot of students at Harvard found that absolutely abhorrent. In 1936, students at Harvard enacted huge protests, anti-Nazi protests at Harvard.

Those protests were red-baited, as you would expect. As today, you have people like yourself saying that the Jewish Voice for Peace is actually a front for Hamas. At the time, it was like, actually, these anti-Nazi protests are just a front for the Soviet Union. This Communist Party USA, there's communists everywhere. Communists have infiltrated our students. And you don't have to wonder what structure, you said the structures of the organizations were attacked. There was a McCarthyist dismantling over the coming decades. So if you were back there in 1930s, would you have been with those protesters or would you have supported a crackdown on those protesters saying that, look, there's a neutral law. You can't hold an anti-Nazi protest on Harvard's campus and we're going to enforce the law? Well, the neutral law wouldn't say an anti-Nazi protest.

It would say that you can't camp and you can't do certain things. You can't use bullhorns to disrupt classes. And yeah, those should be applied evenly, whether you're pro-Nazi or anti-Nazi. The Woolworth protest, you're talking about the civil rights era in the 50s and 60s. The point of those protests was to sit peacefully at lunch counters and get arrested and thereby make national news and expose the illegitimacy of segregation and other racist laws. The students here at Columbia don't want to be arrested. They complain when the police are involved. what the illegitimate authorities are here in enforcing their unjust, racist, whatever laws against encampment

or what have you. So, you know, these are apples and oranges. So, Glenn, final thoughts, and then we'll go back to you, Ilya, for final thoughts as well. Obviously, on these kind of shows, people can make any sorts of claims

about what a law says or doesn't say. And because I regard this law that was just passed two weeks ago by the Republican House, and obviously with a lot of support from Democrats, but Republicans have been waving the banner of free speech and the evils of censorship for the last decade when it comes to their own speech being targeted. I just want to make clear what the law says. I want people to go read it because it's a very short law. It expands the definition of anti-Semitism by adopting the IHRA definition.

And it specifically says this new definition, quote, includes the contemporary examples of antisemitism identified in the IHRA definition. If you then go look at the examples of the IHRA definition of what constitutes anti-Semitism for anti-discrimination law, it says you cannot accuse Jewish citizens of having more loyalty toward Israel than to their own country. You're allowed to say Catholics have more loyalty to the Pope than they do the United States. You're allowed to say the Irish have more loyalty to their country of origin, or Indian Americans do, or evangelicals have more loyalty. You're allowed to say the Irish have more loyalty to their country of origin, or Indian Americans do, or evangelicals have more loyalty.

You just can't say it about American Jews. You're not allowed to deny the right of the state of Israel to exist. You can say America was founded corruptly, the UK was founded corruptly, they shouldn't exist. You just can't say that about Israel. You're not allowed to criticize Israel

in a way that applies a double standard or a difference of criteria to the way you criticize other countries. You can have a party all day criticizing your own government in the US, Canada, whatever, in a way that's a double standard, just not Israel. You're not allowed to say that Jews you believe historically either killed Jesus or were responsible for his death, even though many Christians have long believed that and been taught that. That is now formally anti-Semitism under the law. And you're not allowed to effectuate any comparison between the acts of the Israeli

government and what the Nazis did, even if you believe they're completely similar. And again, you can compare Nazis to any other country, including your own, just not to Israel. That is what the law explicitly incorporates as formally illegal speech for purposes of anti-discrimination law for which you can be sued or otherwise punished. That is what the law says. I hope people go read it. I just read directly from it. Now, the other point that I want to make is the hypocrisy of the American right is that they are very vocal when it comes to things like speech codes or victimization narratives or safetyism narratives. Every single minority group, black people and Latinos and women and immigrants and Muslims and trans people

who have used these narratives, oh, we're very vulnerable in the United States, we're endangered, we're victimized, hate speech incites violence against us, therefore we need speed protections. Every single conservative I know has viciously mocked that narrative for the last 10 years because these are coming from minority groups that they don't really care about. Now, though, that exact same narrative, American Jews are this unique victim group in the United States. They're being uniquely endangered. They don't feel safe on campus because they're passing by slogans that they feel threatened by or uncomfortable by that now they need speech codes on campus and to be able to prohibit certain slogans

like from the river to the sea because it makes Jewish students feel uncomfortable. Words are violence. All of these narratives that the right has heaped scorn on forever are now being enthusiastically embraced in the name of protecting the one minority group to whom they feel a certain kind of loyalty.

The hypocrisy is nauseating. It is so suffocating. And the bigger problem is that this is a longtime effort now in the United States to target Israel critics and pro-Palestinian activists with the kind of censorship that when it's directed at the American right as an actual free speech advocate, I object to. I object in all cases. The problem is so many conservatives exempt the one cause they care about most, which is devotion to Israel, not allowing Israel to be subject to criticism or have activism against it. And they want to use all these narratives and use all this censorship on. It's been going on way before since October 7. Final word to you, Ilya. Glenn's quoting of the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act and its incorporation of the definition by the IHRA are absolutely accurate. Where Glenn is inaccurate is that he says that that kind of speech is now being punished.

The AAA does not create any new causes of action. It does not regulate speech or do anything with those new definitions. Again, the gold standard, the widely accepted standard of antisemitism, other than apply them to Title VI. And for purposes of Title VI, speech is not regulated or criminalized or punished in any way. Again, any university administrators that have in the past used, invoked Title VI to punish speech are acting improperly. And I have defended those who in all sorts of contexts

are the targets of those kinds of witch hunts. So again, you can be as anti-Semitic as you want in your speech and expression. Where Title VI is being violated is where universities take negative actions against someone based on anti-Semitism, as defined in the ways that Glenn said. So if someone doesn't admit a Jewish student or punishes a Jewish student or takes an adverse action against faculty because they think Jews killed Jesus and that person is a Jew,

that's evidence of antisemitic motivation for that action. Not because that person has said something or been part of a rally or anything else. That's a fine distinction perhaps, but again, this all goes to Title VI and we can debate the Title VI as it's laid out in theory or in practice,

but there's no new causes of action, no new regulation or punishment for speech under this legislation. To the extent that it's going to be used if it takes force in a way to punish speech, I would be very much against that. Because again, you have to remember, there is a difference between speech and action.

Certain kinds of speech, death threats, incitement of violence is not protected. And then time, place and manner regulation. So look, there's a reason why the pro-Israeli, other than perhaps that UCLA incident, which again, we don't know what exactly went on, but pro-Israel demonstrations tend to have American flags. It's singing. It's joyous. There's no intimidation. There's no harassment. There are no attacks on America and the West, whereas the intersectional pro-Hamas, pro-terrorist, intersectional left groups, encampments that we've seen are intimidating,

are harassing, are willing to break the rules because they don't believe that they're bound by the rules because of the righteousness of their cause, and yet they're not willing to suffer the slings and arrows of civil disobedience punishment to showcase those rules, because I guess they know that most people are not going to be in their corners. So I remain as staunch an advocate of free speech, possibly more than Glenn. And I reject the label of either hypocrisy,

which is not a crime, but I do think that the DEI structures and university leaderships need to be fundamentally reformed so that we can all go on to enjoy, you know, students can enjoy their educations rather than be disrupted by these illiberal protesters, regardless of the underlying merits of their expression which should be protected martha the the the call of the claim that you're making that the it's actually the

campus protests that are uh... harassing and violent is contradicted by the study glenn mentioned and also by all well how do you know you have something that's mostly people with a number of people who will go ahead and i don't think it's not a good at all. No, I mean, who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes, right? We all see what's going on at these things and how they're disrupting the educational

missions of the universities, how Columbia decided to take all their classes online. Several schools have now canceled their graduation. That's not normal. The intimidation and harassment that we're seeing is not normal and should be investigated and punished. You can walk around all these encampments. Columbia canceling its graduation because it couldn't handle the encampment is a different thing than like them being forced to. And there are huge numbers of Jews inside these encampments. There are anti-Semitism exhibits about the evils of anti-Semitism

right in the encampment in Columbia. They celebrated Passover dinner together. There are Jews, huge presence of Jews inside these protest movements on almost every campus. There are fellow travelers and useful idiots in any organization. There are fellow travelers and useful idiots in any organization. We'll also link to Glenn's article about the anti-Semitism amendment, whatever that act was called, the AAA. The AAA. So people can decide for themselves if Congress just expanded the definition for just no reason and it'll have no effect or whether expanding it had a purpose. And we'll see what happens in the Senate. Ilya Shapiro and Glenn

Greenwald, thank you both. Really appreciate this debate. I know that we're all eager to sort this stuff out. So thank you both for being willing to have the conversation. Over the past six years of making my true crime podcast, Hell and Gone,

I've learned one thing. No town is too small for murder. I'm Catherine Townsend. I've received hundreds of messages from people across the country begging for help with unsolved murders. I was calling about the murder of my husband at the cold case. They've never found her. And it haunts me to this day. The murderer is still out there.

Every week on Hell and Gone Murder Line, I dig into a new case, bringing the skills I've learned as a journalist and private investigator to ask the questions no one else is asking. Police really didn't care to even try. She was still somebody's mother. She was still somebody's daughter. She was still somebody's sister. There's so many questions

that we've never gotten any kind of answers for. If you have a case you'd like me to look into, call the Hell and Gone Murder Line at 678-744-6145. Listen to Hell and Gone Murder Line on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I always had to be so good no one could ignore me. Carve my path with data and drive. But some people only see who I am on paper.

The paper ceiling. The limitations from degree screens to stereotypes that are holding back over 70 million stars. Workers skilled through alternative routes rather than a bachelor's degree. It's time for skills to speak for themselves. Find resources for breaking through barriers at taylorpapersceiling.org. Brought to you by Opportunity at Work and the Ad Council. She was a decorated veteran. A Marine who saved her comrades, a hero. She was stoic, modest, tough, someone who inspired people. Everyone thought

they knew her until they didn't. I remember sitting on her couch and asking her, is this real? Is this real? Is this real? Is this real? I just couldn't wrap my head around what kind of person would do that to another person that was getting treatment, that was, you know, dying. This is a story all about trust and about a woman named Sarah Kavanaugh. I've always been told I'm a really good listener, right? And I maximized that while I was lying. Listen to Deep Cover, The Truth About Sarah on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Ryan, I loved that debate. Actually, it was kind of the debate that we were all waiting for. I feel like I haven't seen those two sides represented so well. Who won? Well, again, this is going to be like last week, right? It's not a pile-on because I genuinely think there's nuance to Ilya's side. I was surprised that he supported the AAA bill. You know what I mean? Like that's, I think that's an incredibly tough sell from a free speech proponent. I was actually

surprised by that. Right. It's certainly not free speech absolutism. Right. Uh, even, even if you take his claim at complete face value, that these definitions are only being used in furtherance of some type of, uh, quote unquote prosecution against a student who has also done some other things. Those other things could be protesting at an encampment. And it is using speech within the framework of punishing someone. Even if you take him 100% at face value and saying that it alone is not enough, that you need something extra, the fact that speech can be that something extra is not something that a free speech proponent could support. I was looking forward to this one. So a couple of weeks ago, I was on Megyn Kelly and Megyn

and Eliana Johnson, we were playing clips of, I want to say it was Columbia, and it was like after the Al-Qassam's next target thing had happened. And there were some really legitimate examples of obvious bigotry and or incitement that was happening around the campus protests. And then we interviewed Safia Southie, just like two days later, a student who was practicing just peaceful civil disobedience at the Columbia encampment,ie, student, just like two days later, a student who was practicing just peaceful civil disobedience at the Columbia encampment, a Jewish student, by the way. And we asked her about some of the specific exact examples that I had been talking about the other day. And I think, you know, Glenn is absolutely right. There's this weird conflation. It's not weird at all, predictable

conflation of the actual bigotry and incitement with some of the peaceful protests. And that's really dangerous. And we've talked about why. And Safiya Salthy shared some of the same frustrations that like, it's not easy to, you were talking about the red baiting. That's not easy for people who want to legitimately participate in civil disobedience. And were there some student communists who participated in the anti-Nazi demonstrations on Harvard's campus in 1936? Of course. Bet you there was. Of course. Good for them. Of course. Yeah. And so I actually do think one of the reasons I was looking forward to this debate is that the nuance here is really, really difficult for the legacy press to address appropriately. And those two were, I think, like great representatives of

their side. I think, you know, even as someone on the right, I think that goes wildly too far to support the AAA bill. When you even have Republicans talking, I've heard this just through my own reporting, pretty mainstream conservative Republicans uncomfortable with the language in that bill and working in the background on the Senate side right now to tweak it. I actually heard that from sources yesterday. So there you go. I mean, when you have that, I mean, that's rough. Hopefully they're not talking to Ilya. It's fine. Just let that roll. I'm surprised by that. Yeah. But I think you can dumb down the argument to say, look, if you commit civil disobedience, you break the law, you get arrested. And in some ways, like in the Woolworth example, that is the purpose of getting arrested.

You're trying to expose the law. But there are degrees at work here. An intense crackdown followed by attempts to kind of expel and imprison students is different than say, hey, everybody who wants to get it. This is how protests often work. If you're committing civil disobedience and you want to get arrested, come here. Form a line over here. If you don't, this is your opportunity to go now. Anybody who doesn't leave, we will assume that you want to be protested. They get jail protesting. They get

jailed. They get a little fine, a day in court sometimes. They pay the fine, sometimes spend the night. That is different than some of the more violent crackdowns slamming professors' heads into the sidewalk that are intended to suppress the content of the expression that you're seeing. And I think it's impossible to divorce people's attitudes about this from the actual content of these protests. It was also very helpful that Glenn said right off the bat, people who are engaged in violence, I don't want to put words in his mouth because I don't remember precisely how he phrased it,

but people who are engaged in like actual, you know, non-protected speech and speech that we can all, you know, say is like incitement or whatever, you know, they should be punished. There should be consequences if you're like egregiously violating, you know, some of those some of these very obvious examples. I thought it was helpful that Glenn established that right off the bat because, yeah, nobody here is saying that there have been, like, these protests have been perfect. And on the other hand, though, I think I shouldn't say nobody has been saying that because I think there have been some people on the left who have acted like, oh, yeah, nothing, like, everything is absolutely perfect. Any criticism of this is tantamount to, you know. Objectively supporting the other side, which I understand.

Right, right. Or like saying, yeah, it's, yes. Giving sucker to the genocide. Right. Which is a very heavy accusation too. So I was just really pleased with how well I think they both represented their respective sides.

Obviously, I think both of us agree with Glenn more at the end of the day. Yeah, I think so. It's been fun to do this on Friday so far. We're three weeks in. I hope everybody's enjoying the show. BreakingPoints.com to subscribe. If you're a subscriber, you get this on Thursday night,

so you get a little early. All right. We will see you guys on Wednesday. You experienced dad guilt? I hate it. How hard is it? She understands, but she still be pissed. She's like, dude.

Happy Father's Day. This show may be called Good Moms, Bad Choices, but this show isn't just for moms. We keep it real about relationships and everything in between. And yes, men are more than welcome to listen in. I knew nothing about brunch. She was a terrible girlfriend, but she put me on to brunch. To hear this and more, open your free iHeart app, search Good Moms, Bad Choices, and listen now. Over the years of making my true crime podcast, Hell and Gone, I've learned no town is too small for murder.

I'm Katherine Townsend. I've heard from hundreds of people across the country with an unsolved murder in their community. I was calling about the murder of my husband. The murderer is still out there. Each week, I investigate a new case. If there is a case we should hear about, call 678-744-6145. Listen to Hell and Gone Murder Line on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. I always had to be so good, no one could ignore me.

Carve my path with data and drive. But some people only see who I am on paper. The paper ceiling. The limitations from degree screens to stereotypes that are holding back over 70 million stars. Workers skilled through alternative routes rather than a bachelor's degree.

It's time for skills to speak for themselves. Find resources for breaking through barriers at TaylorPaperCeiling.org Brought to you by Opportunity at Work and the Ad Council. This is an iHeart Podcast.