Agree on all points, but the larger problem with the law, of course, is that it's prima facia unconstitutional and can't possibly survive strict scrutiny, even in the current environment of hostility to free speech.
You didn't specify how it is dangerous. The options appear to be:
1) It is dangerous for free speech on campus. But this doesn't actually exist and hasn't existed for years, so that can't be it.
2) It is dangerous for a balanced and productive debate on Israel-Palestine that will help build a solution promoting global peace. LOL, LMAO even.
3) It is dangerous because anti-zionist palecons on campus might get hounded out. But these people don't exist.
4) It is dangerous because it gives normie liberal college administrators a weapon to get rid of commie freaks when they are being particularly obnoxious and unproductive by dredging up some absolutely mental thing they said about Israel once.
Anyway, six months ago, you assured us that - trust me bro! - you have read loads (loads!) of books about the Israeli Arab conflict and will, when you have time, demonstrate that actually it's Israel's fault that Palestinian irredentist paramilitaries have not been able to build a functional state. A quick peruse of twitter shows you clearly have effectively limitless time to dunk on the 10% (generous estimate) of Twitter that is strongly pro-Israel with very clever and witty takes all day, every day. So where's the post?
1) I have explained why it was dangerous, it's just that the argument you made to pretend I didn't is an obvious fallacy: the fact that free speech is already severely curtailed on campuses by left-wing conformism, which I don't deny and in fact regularly denounce, doesn't mean that it can't be curtailed even more by the federal government.
2) It will happen when I have time to work on it. When I'm not dunking on people's stupidity on Twitter, I work on something that actually pays my bills and that I've actually been working on for much longer than 6 months, whereas nobody is paying me to write on Substack. Zionists also constantly make strong claims on this topic, which they don't feel the need to back up with a 30,000 words long post, so for the moment I'm just like them except that unlike them what I say is actually true. In general, I don't owe you or anyone else for that matter anything.
1) Well, actually, in a common sense way it does. If you already have 0 of something, you can't have less of it. This is what libertarians and conservatives do all the time. Some new regulation, or liberal reform or whatever is the end of the old America. And then the next one comes along and THIS TIME, this is the dangerous turning point and on again for ever. You're a normie really.
Absolute free speech exists almost nowhere; functionally 'free speech' just means that the Overton Window includes most people present. There is right now unlimited free speech on campus to say genital preferences are racist. There isn't free speech to say Arabs have low IQs, or that Clarence Thomas is dreamy. The way to actually get free speech for regular people or conservatives or racists on campus is to fire commies and keep firing them until there aren't enough to ban regular people and conservatives or racists from speaking,. That's not going to actually happen. But if it did happen it would be because a law like this was passed and successfully enforced.
2) "whereas nobody is paying me to write on Substack". That's a pretty major L. Maybe if you spent less time dunking on 17 year old hasbaroids and wrote articles you said you were going to write 6 months ago you would get some paid subscribers.
" In general, I don't owe you or anyone else for that matter anything."
If you have argued like literally 1000 times that you know more about the conflict because you have read SO MANY BOOKS, and will shortly write an article demonstrating HOW MANY BOOKS you have read about this conflict (which, let us not forget YOU HAVE READ SO MANY BOOKS about) then, you do kind of owe it to put up. You don't owe it to me, but maybe to yourself to not be an internet blowhard, or your ancestors, or La France perhaps.
You yourself point out that free speech is not an either or kind of things but come on a continuum and, in the same breath, say that since there is already zero of it on campus so it can't possibly be damaged by any law. I never said that this law was going to be the end of free speech on campus, in fact I even said it wasn't even clear it would make any difference to the immediate situation, but unless it's overturned in court it will enshrine something that will reduce free speech even more on campus by adding one more topic on which people can't say what they want. On the rest, I have already said everything I had to say, so there is no point in continuing this conversation.
It's not a continuum at all; it's a tug of war. If Harvard was a Hassidic yeshiva you would have absolute free speech to make jokes about racial minorities, and absolutely no free speech to discuss the documentary hypothesis. That's how it works everywhere. The Overton Window can be a bit wider here or there, but what really matters is its location. More free speech for one group means less for the group they don't like. Less free speech for commies means more free speech for not commies. The only people who want to say the things banned by this statute are commies and internet rightoids who - not for any weird reasons, but purely because of the ENORMOUS VOLUME OF BOOKS they have read - just really like talking about how this one country should be rendered defenceless before, or given over entirely to, Arab paramilitaries. But the latter aren't even at universities so it doesn't effect them, only commies.
It will have exactly zero effect on how much freedom of speech right-wingers have in universities because at worst only a handful of people will get fired over this. Anti-Zionists and more generally people critical of Israel will just shut up more on this topic, but they'll continue to stifle the speech of right-wingers on other topics. The reason why you don't mind is not because it will mean more free speech for right-wingers, it's because it will mean less free speech for people critical of Israel. And yes I know the story, everyone who criticizes Israel's rampage in Gaza and more generally Zionist propaganda only does so for "weird reasons" (if you see what I mean), and if they had their way, the poor Jews in Israel would be rendered defenseless and soon genocided by Arab paramilitaries because of magical reasons, blah blah blah. I don't have time for this.
Yes, in 100% of the cases who would be effected by this statute, if they had their way Arab paramilitaries would right now be going round Tel Aviv lining people up and shooting them, yes. No, that is not a very likely outcome, but, yes, this is the outcome they want because this is what Fatah, never mind Hamas, would do if they could militarily overpower Israel and this is literally what the people concerned want. Of course, I have not read the SO MANY BOOKS that prove this not to be true, but it is true.
And, yes, if these people were silenced, or put in prison, or executed, or anything else this would be in every respect a good thing, and a side effect would be that campuses would be nicer places for normal people, but any of the above is a very unlikely outcome too.
Agree on all points, but the larger problem with the law, of course, is that it's prima facia unconstitutional and can't possibly survive strict scrutiny, even in the current environment of hostility to free speech.
Yes, hopefully the courts will dispense with this quickly (hard to understand why they haven't done that with the Trump exec order already).
You didn't specify how it is dangerous. The options appear to be:
1) It is dangerous for free speech on campus. But this doesn't actually exist and hasn't existed for years, so that can't be it.
2) It is dangerous for a balanced and productive debate on Israel-Palestine that will help build a solution promoting global peace. LOL, LMAO even.
3) It is dangerous because anti-zionist palecons on campus might get hounded out. But these people don't exist.
4) It is dangerous because it gives normie liberal college administrators a weapon to get rid of commie freaks when they are being particularly obnoxious and unproductive by dredging up some absolutely mental thing they said about Israel once.
Anyway, six months ago, you assured us that - trust me bro! - you have read loads (loads!) of books about the Israeli Arab conflict and will, when you have time, demonstrate that actually it's Israel's fault that Palestinian irredentist paramilitaries have not been able to build a functional state. A quick peruse of twitter shows you clearly have effectively limitless time to dunk on the 10% (generous estimate) of Twitter that is strongly pro-Israel with very clever and witty takes all day, every day. So where's the post?
1) I have explained why it was dangerous, it's just that the argument you made to pretend I didn't is an obvious fallacy: the fact that free speech is already severely curtailed on campuses by left-wing conformism, which I don't deny and in fact regularly denounce, doesn't mean that it can't be curtailed even more by the federal government.
2) It will happen when I have time to work on it. When I'm not dunking on people's stupidity on Twitter, I work on something that actually pays my bills and that I've actually been working on for much longer than 6 months, whereas nobody is paying me to write on Substack. Zionists also constantly make strong claims on this topic, which they don't feel the need to back up with a 30,000 words long post, so for the moment I'm just like them except that unlike them what I say is actually true. In general, I don't owe you or anyone else for that matter anything.
1) Well, actually, in a common sense way it does. If you already have 0 of something, you can't have less of it. This is what libertarians and conservatives do all the time. Some new regulation, or liberal reform or whatever is the end of the old America. And then the next one comes along and THIS TIME, this is the dangerous turning point and on again for ever. You're a normie really.
Absolute free speech exists almost nowhere; functionally 'free speech' just means that the Overton Window includes most people present. There is right now unlimited free speech on campus to say genital preferences are racist. There isn't free speech to say Arabs have low IQs, or that Clarence Thomas is dreamy. The way to actually get free speech for regular people or conservatives or racists on campus is to fire commies and keep firing them until there aren't enough to ban regular people and conservatives or racists from speaking,. That's not going to actually happen. But if it did happen it would be because a law like this was passed and successfully enforced.
2) "whereas nobody is paying me to write on Substack". That's a pretty major L. Maybe if you spent less time dunking on 17 year old hasbaroids and wrote articles you said you were going to write 6 months ago you would get some paid subscribers.
" In general, I don't owe you or anyone else for that matter anything."
If you have argued like literally 1000 times that you know more about the conflict because you have read SO MANY BOOKS, and will shortly write an article demonstrating HOW MANY BOOKS you have read about this conflict (which, let us not forget YOU HAVE READ SO MANY BOOKS about) then, you do kind of owe it to put up. You don't owe it to me, but maybe to yourself to not be an internet blowhard, or your ancestors, or La France perhaps.
You yourself point out that free speech is not an either or kind of things but come on a continuum and, in the same breath, say that since there is already zero of it on campus so it can't possibly be damaged by any law. I never said that this law was going to be the end of free speech on campus, in fact I even said it wasn't even clear it would make any difference to the immediate situation, but unless it's overturned in court it will enshrine something that will reduce free speech even more on campus by adding one more topic on which people can't say what they want. On the rest, I have already said everything I had to say, so there is no point in continuing this conversation.
It's not a continuum at all; it's a tug of war. If Harvard was a Hassidic yeshiva you would have absolute free speech to make jokes about racial minorities, and absolutely no free speech to discuss the documentary hypothesis. That's how it works everywhere. The Overton Window can be a bit wider here or there, but what really matters is its location. More free speech for one group means less for the group they don't like. Less free speech for commies means more free speech for not commies. The only people who want to say the things banned by this statute are commies and internet rightoids who - not for any weird reasons, but purely because of the ENORMOUS VOLUME OF BOOKS they have read - just really like talking about how this one country should be rendered defenceless before, or given over entirely to, Arab paramilitaries. But the latter aren't even at universities so it doesn't effect them, only commies.
It will have exactly zero effect on how much freedom of speech right-wingers have in universities because at worst only a handful of people will get fired over this. Anti-Zionists and more generally people critical of Israel will just shut up more on this topic, but they'll continue to stifle the speech of right-wingers on other topics. The reason why you don't mind is not because it will mean more free speech for right-wingers, it's because it will mean less free speech for people critical of Israel. And yes I know the story, everyone who criticizes Israel's rampage in Gaza and more generally Zionist propaganda only does so for "weird reasons" (if you see what I mean), and if they had their way, the poor Jews in Israel would be rendered defenseless and soon genocided by Arab paramilitaries because of magical reasons, blah blah blah. I don't have time for this.
Yes, in 100% of the cases who would be effected by this statute, if they had their way Arab paramilitaries would right now be going round Tel Aviv lining people up and shooting them, yes. No, that is not a very likely outcome, but, yes, this is the outcome they want because this is what Fatah, never mind Hamas, would do if they could militarily overpower Israel and this is literally what the people concerned want. Of course, I have not read the SO MANY BOOKS that prove this not to be true, but it is true.
And, yes, if these people were silenced, or put in prison, or executed, or anything else this would be in every respect a good thing, and a side effect would be that campuses would be nicer places for normal people, but any of the above is a very unlikely outcome too.