Free Speech, Hate Speech and Principles of Community: The Case Against Free Speech Absolutism

Review Article

Free Speech, Hate Speech and Principles of Community: The Case Against Free Speech Absolutism Constantine Kaniklidis

Scholars for Peace in the Middle East (SPME)Director, Progressive Voices for Peace in the Middle East (PVPME)Director, Medical Research, No Surrender Breast Cancer Foundation (NSBCF)Member, European Association for Cancer Research (EACR)

Correspondence: Constantine [email protected]

Date of last update: April 6, 2015.

Disclosures: The author indicates no financial relationships.

Abstract

We here challenge the perspective of free speech absolutism (or fundamentalism) that naively and in juridical error holds the preeminency of free expression, über alles, and counter that free speech must integrate both individualist and communitarian concerns, for the common good, that is, that the juridically correct understanding and implementation of free speech, under both national and supra-national / international law, must recognize licit borders and limitations of free speech in furtherance of community harmony and cohesion, dignitary rights, and towards the goal of fostering of inclusive and non-hostile environments free from the threat and fact of identity-discrimination and by expressions of misethnic animus (based on identity "indicia" (signs) of race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other group identity traits). From this it follows that the promotion of hatred under certain circumstances is, and must continue, to be deemed a justifiable and proportional limit on free expression, and that more specifically hate speech and hate-based propaganda, which effectively cause ethnocentric dignitary harms, curtail inclusiveness, spread degrading falsities damaging of group reputation(s), and thus defame, intimidate, or incite to hatred and significantly undermine the common good, with dehumanizing, degrading, defamatory, and exclusionary intent, then these, like defamation, can be limited without violating either the letter or the spirit of the First Amendment. We conclude by arguing that the resolution to the claimed tension between free expression and societal good, is via increasingly adopted – and near-universally implemented in international law – Principles of Community that recognize legitimate constraints to expression in the interests of community harmony, with a proactive duty to establish and maintain a "safe, caring and humane environment” for the common good.

Free Speech, Hate Speech and Principles of Community | Copyright © 2015 | Constantine Kaniklidis | All rights reserved. 1

Executive Summary

The Limits of Free Speech Adopting an unrestrictive perspective on free speech – free speech fundamentalism or absolutism – is the essence of dogma, and is juridically in error. The First Amendment must be maturely understood to support theprotection of individual rights for the common good, and free speech theorizing must integrate individualist andcommunitarian concerns of the First Amendment, in particular, and of the Constitution in general, and any suchapproach must be informed by Principles of Community defining the legitimate boundaries and constraints of free speech in furtherance of community harmony and cohesion, dignitary rights, and the fostering of inclusive non-hostile environments free from identity-discrimination, per norms of both international and national laws. Regulation of hate speech neither invariably, nor even frequently, weakens the respect accorded free speech norbegins any "slippery slope" to totalitarianism4, or "snowball effect” toward censorship. It is now established that the willful promotion of hatred under certain circumstances under international human rights law is deemed a justifiable and proportional limit on free expression in light of its deleterious effects upon the dignity and equality of the vulnerable and demonized, and of society as a whole. As Stanley Fish has commented “… the First Amendment ... is invoked ritually when there are no First Amendment issues in sight”.

Fair ExpressionFair expression denotes the continuum of expressive acts between free speech and hate speech, and not being, and never having been, absolute, can be constrained by societally, morally and legally compelling reasons against hate speech, that is, against expression that aims to vilify its target audience based on identity "indicia" (signs) of race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other group identity traits; both incitement to acts of racial or other group discrimination as well as incitement to hatred or hostility are considered a species of hate speech and as such expression is not entitled to protection.

The Harms of Hate Speech Hate speech and hate-based propaganda constitute an affront to a person’s core identity, effectively causing ethnocentric dignitary harms, hate speech being constituted by advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, violence or hatred, with the hate message often meant to curtail inclusiveness, and given that the purveyors of hate speech aim at spreading degrading falsities that damage group reputations, defame, intimidate, or incite to hatred, with dehumanizing, degrading, defamatory, and exclusionary intent, then these, like defamation, can be limited without violating the First Amendment, especially and since it is recognized and evidenced that hate speakers aim to convert their targets into ‘social pariahs, to disparage and disenfranchise them, and to get others to do the same”, robbing them of “the dignity of inclusion. Moreover, the accumulation of vilifying comments which by being an “intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment”, creates an atmosphere of fear, silencing, and shame for the targets.

Further, hate speech fundamentally attacks the dignity of a group, a practice the U.S. Supreme Court labeled "group libel” [defamation], the intent being to render via false and defamatory imputations an individual’s membership in a group a liability by denigrating group-defining characteristics or associating them with bigoted factual claims, against the public good of inclusiveness and communal/societal cohesiveness. Indeed, despite hiding under democratic mantle of freedom of expression, it is now increasingly recognized that hate speech has little or no social and political value, and given the social harms of hate speech, the extensive dangerposed to both individuals and to society by expressions of misethnic animus generally outweigh bigots’ private interests of venting their hatred, and courts have critically accepted the authority to restrict expressions that significantly undermine the common good.

Principles of CommunityPrinciples of Community – enshrined in multiple covenants of customary international law binding on all signatories (including the U.S, and upheld by U.S. Law) – recognize that constraints to expression are legitimate in the interests of community harmony, with a proactive duty to establish and maintain a "safe, caring and humane environment”. These communitarian principles identify hate speech as damaging group reputation and erosive of individual/group core identity, inflicting dignitary harms, with the accumulation of vilifying comments, contempt and derision engendering an “intimidating, hostile" environment and "atmosphere of fear [and] silencing.


► Facts and Myths of Free SpeechUnprotected Speech: The Limits of Free Speech First Amendment protections are not, and never have been, absolute, and all societies have place substantive limits on the exercise of speech given that “speech always takes place within a context of competing values”185. Liberty is thus not license, and there are a large number of content-based constraints1,3,69: advocacy of illegal conduct, obscenity, child pornography, defamation (or libel in any publication79), deceptive commercial speech, copyright infraction, practicing medicine without a license, and certain proscribed forms of hate speech [such as incitement to violence, among others, considered "performative speech"] - are not by law entitled to constitutional protection, and have none. And all expression is constrained by the rights of others to enjoy their lives and liberties, and nor does the right to self-expression trump other people’s dignitary rights1,185. As oft-quoted, while the Constitution protects freedom of speech, “it is not a suicide pact”2. As observed: "And so, today, we are all realists. Except in one area—the First Amendment, where argument-closing formulas (the speech/act distinction, the prohibition against “content” regulation) and shibboleths (let the marketplace of ideas work; the cure for bad speech is more speech) still hold sway and are solemnly intoned by otherwise intelligent people who ought to know better"3.

► Hate Speech Regulation Indeed, against the claim that hate speech restrictions would "un-Americanize" America (“But America Wouldn’t Be America Anymore”), the experience of other countries consistently and unambiguously shows that such constraints would not affect American democracy negatively and would in the contrary, cause America to be even more "American", with the experiences of Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands and other countries with hate speech constraints showing that regulation of hate speech neither invariably, nor even frequently, weakens the respect accorded free speech nor begins any "slippery slope" to totalitarianism4, or "snowball effect toward censorship"3.

Thus in a systematic review commissioned by ARTICLE 19/International Centre Against Censorship78, a London-based international non-partisan organization for advocacy of freedom of expression and the press, the question of hate speech under domestic and international laws was examined in a three-day conference by participants, all majorfigures in the international human rights community, delegates from European and Third World nations, with legal scholars from the United States and other countries, the conference papers published under the title, Striking a Balance79, and it was found in detailed country reports of Argentina, Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany,India, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Uruguay, and the United States, that the charge that hate speech regulation backfires, harming those it is designed to protect, is not borne out, with many countries (like Germany) viewing hate speech and propaganda as an affront to a person’s core identity, effectively causing ethnocentric dignitary harms79-82.

Thus, fair expression – which denotes the continuum of expressive acts between free speech and hate speech – not being, and never having been, absolute, can be constrained by societally, morally and legally compelling reasons against hate speech, that is, against expression that aims to vilify its target audience based on identity "indicia" (signs) of race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other group identity traits; both incitement to acts of racial or other group discrimination as well as incitement to hatred are considered a species of hate speech and as such expression is not entitled to protection under international human rights law [as per: (1) Article 20(2) of the ICCPR5 and Article 13(5) of the ACHR6 re advocacy of hatred; (2) incitement or dissemination of racial hatred, including to raise or strengthen antisemitic feelings, as in Faurisson v. France7; (3) incitement to discrimination or hatred or hostility (ICCPR)4, and (4) the ECRI, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance8, whose mandate includes not only laws about hate speech, racism, and other identity-discrimination but also abuses of freedom of expression], all of which consider hate speech outside scope of protection because these areas are not central to the free exchange of ideas and the associated incitement to hatred inflicts societal harm, and all now customary international law and as such binding on all signing nations, including the U.S.

These restrictions against hate speech have been upheld by U.S. Law in the landmark Chapinsky v. New Hampshire case9, and in, among others, Cutler v. Dorn10 which found that accumulation of vilifying comments which by being an “intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment”, creates an atmosphere of fear, silencing, and shame for the targets11,12.

Adopting an unrestrictive perspective on free speech – free speech fundamentalism or absolutism – is the essence of dogma, and is juridically in error, taking a right as an ultimate duty while ignoring the ultimate end of constitutional government: the well-being of all social members13. As hate speech expert Jean-Francois Gauldrault-DesBiens said:


“[T]he dilemma [of inhibiting speech] becomes a duty to regulate against abusive forms of expression, because a constitutional democracy cannot tolerate radical denials of the humanity of some of its citizens ....”14. Thus the willful promotion of hatred under certain circumstances under international human rights law is deemed a justifiableand proportional limit on free expression in light of its deleterious effects upon the dignity and equality of the vulnerable and demonized, and of society as a whole.

Indeed, the as the U.S. State Department Report on Global Anti-Semitism concluded (2008): “the demonization of Israel, or vilification of Israeli leaders, sometimes through comparisons with Nazi leaders, and through the use of Nazi symbols to caricature them, indicates an anti-Semitic bias rather than a valid criticism of policy concerning a controversial issue”15, and note that as concluded by the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law in their position paper on Best Practices Guide for Combating Campus Anti-Semitism and Anti-Israelism16, some anti-Israel incidents and speech may constitute national origin discrimination against those of Israeli national origin even if they are not anti-Semitic.

► Three Key Aspects of Hate Speech: (1) Article 20(2) of the ICCPR [5] and Article 13(5) of the ACHR [6] require advocacy of hatred; (2) incitement or dissemination of racial hatred (as for instance to raise or strengthen anti-Semitic feelings, as in Faurisson v. France7; (3) incitement to discrimination or hatred or hostility [ICCPR5]. Thus, international law under ICCPR, and reaffirmed by the US in the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR)6 requires state to declare that advocacy of hatred on national, racial, or religious grounds constitutes a criminal offense, with ICCPR placing an obligation on States Parties to prohibit hate speech (Article 20(2) provides:Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility [hatred] orviolence shall be prohibited by law).

The Harms of Hate SpeechAnd although one can argue the arcana of hate speech instantiation, there is consensus that it encompasses forms of expression aimed at persecuting people by vilifying their racial, ethnic, or other identities, going beyond expression that is objectionable or offensive, given that the harm caused by hate speech may extend to entire communities through the promotion discrimination and intolerance179. A web of international laws and domestic jurisdictions haverecognized the need to protect against hate speech's intrinsic incitement to discrimination, crystallized in the Camden Principles on Freedom of Expression and Equality (CPFEE)180 signed by high-level United Nations and other officials, representatives of civil society, academic experts, and others, the Camden Principles themselves based on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)182 , the Council of Europe's European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms39, article 10 of which allows the right tofreedom of expression to be subject to restrictions necessary “for the protection of the reputation or rights of others”,the Inter-American Court of Human Rights181 applying the Organization of American States' American Convention on Human Rights)5, and the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights183 applying the African Union's African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights184. Unpeeling hate speech further, we note that the Camden Principles define hate speech as “advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostilityor violence”, with “hatred” and “hostility” as referring to “intense and irrational emotions of opprobrium, enmity and detestation towards the target group” via incitement which signifies statements that create an “imminent risk of discrimination, hostility or violence against persons belonging to those groups179,180. These collectively countervail the naive approach of free-speech absolutism/fundamentalism that is often ignorantly espoused

► Marketplace of Ideas: The Myth of “The Truth Will Out” The dictum that truth always triumphs over persecution if both are allowed free expression is a reassuring and pleasant falsehood which however all experience refutes, as history is rich with real instances of truth put down by persecution. One example, of dozens one could proffer: the truly massive free flow of abolitionist ideas did not peacefully overcome slavery via the exercise and exchange of logical arguments and counterarguments as to its evils, but rather it took a civil war, not a marketplace of ideas and exchanges, to end the practice. The marketplace ofideas fantasy – that truth examined through the free and competitive exchange of ideas will prevail (most powerfullyarticulated by Oliver Wendell Holmes), fails in the face of history and reality, and has been rejected in numerous case law: thus in Times v Sullivan17 it was held that hate speech does not advance “uninhibited, robust, and wide open” dialogue about social improvement, but rather deprecates the overarching goals of representative democracies, of social well-being, fairness, and justice (beyond just equal representation). Like fighting words, hate speech plays, as per the landmark Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire9 case concluded, “no essential part of any


exposition of ideas and [is] of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from [it] is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality”, so it can be seen that since the purveyors of hate speech aim at spreading degrading falsities, these, like defamation, can be limited without violating the First Amendment18.

The historically laughable and massively erroneous idea that falsehood and hate speech will always be vanquished by truth in the open marketplace of ideas operates in a vacuum free of historical reality: seventy years full of political verbal antisemitism preceded the discriminatory Nürnberg Laws passed in Nazi Germany in 1935 which served only to formalize the unofficial and extensive measures taken against Jews for years leading up to 1935, and years again of antisemitic speech preceded the rise of national socialism and the perpetration of the Holocaust19-21, and the foundations of the death camps were baptized in years of dehumanizing rhetoric and condemnation of the Jews22. This underlines the fact that dissemination of virulent lies targeted by national, ethnic, racial, religious or sexual identity nurtures and promotes the rise of hate crimes via desensitizing people to the serious real-world consequences of bigotry23. And as we have already noted, the free flow of abolitionist literature was ineffectual in the fight against slavery, which did not end through rational discourse and open exchange of ideas. In fact, any closereading of the “marketplace of ideas” perspective to hate speech reveals theoretical foundations that are deeply antidemocratic11,24, and exposes the failure to grasp that language in aid of exposing and discerning truth, can also stifle and misrepresent it.

Similarly, in Mauritania, slavery is based exclusively on racial and biological factors: all slaves are black Africans, all slave owners are Arab/Berbers. It has been found that sanction for the practice has originated as far back as ancient Islamic stereotypes of blacks that purport that slavery is in fact a religious institution, evidenced by Middle East expert Bernard Lewis who surveyed Arab literature and folklore, finding that many “early Islamic poets ... suggest very strongly a feeling of hatred and contempt directed against persons of African birth or origin”25. In keeping with these findings, a Human Rights Watch/Africa report concluded the Islam religion continues to be “important in the perpetuation of slavery”26. Therefore, as in so many other countries including the Sudan, religion ismanipulated to perpetuate privilege based on ethnicity, with constant culturally sanctioned disparagements.

Thus, the preludes of (1) pervasive and erosive antisemitic expression and the repeated antisemitic propaganda in theWeimar Republic of racist ideologues like Julius Streicher publishing perverse attacks against Jews in Der Stürmer enabled the Nürnberg Laws in Germany and then the death camps, (2) the years of denigrations of blacks and slaves in the U.S., (3) decades of systematic propaganda and imagery of the Indian savage which developed a sufficiently strong hold across America to legitimize the expropriation of tribal lands and removal of the native American inhabitants, and (4) the racist and dehumanizing Arabic discourse about blacks that contributed to the perpetuation of black slavery in contemporary Mauritania and Sudan (and elsewhere), these are all historical examples of gradually inculcated linguistic paradigms that justified and fomented injustices, showing the gradual development ofgroup hatred through propaganda, and such live examples of hate propaganda underline the need for it to be effectively checked since it ultimately threatens to popularize group hatred27. These real-world case studies expose the libertarian argument that rights can best be protected by uninhibited and unrestricted hate propaganda as fundamentally counterintuitive and ahistorical, given the demonstrable long-term dangers associated with hate speech.

► The Low Value of Hate Speech Diatribe and propaganda are intended to communicate aggression and influence behavior: "Hate speakers do not proclaim their views to engage listeners in intellectual debate; rather, they try to gain adherence to their destructiveideals. The hate message is often meant to curtail inclusiveness"28, and therefore we must guard against a doctrinaireextolling of speech above all other democratic values; "speech that furthers social welfare and justice is on a different par from invectives designed to undermine them"29.

In agreement, in a joint statement with the United Nations’ Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights at the Organization of American States (IACHR) and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Representative on Freedom of the Media, the Special Rapporteur recognized that expression that incites or promotes “racial hatred, discrimination, violence and intolerance” is harmful, and that crimes against humanity are often accompanied or preceded by these forms of expression30.

Despite hiding under democratic mantle of freedom of expression31, it is now increasingly recognized that hate


speech has little or no social and political value32, and that, like fighting words, hate speech as recognized in US caselaw9, is “of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality”, since the social harms of hate speech, the extensive danger posed to both individuals and to society by expressions of misethnic animus generally outweigh bigots’ private interests of venting their hatred. Indeed, courts have accepted the authority to restrict expressions that significantly undermine the common good33.

This has been further clarified through the concept of “contamination”, one that challenges ‘free speech orthodoxy’: contamination captures that hate speech undermines a liberal public good, namely, a pervasive, diffuse, general, sustained, and reliable underpinning of people’s basic dignity, provided by all to and for all, and that hate speakers aim to convert their targets into ‘social pariahs, to disparage and disenfranchise them, and to get others to do the same”, robbing them of “the dignity of inclusion”, where “dignity … [refers to] a person’s basic entitlement to be regarded as a member of society in good standing”97.

► Principles of Community in Action One Principle of Community (derived from UCSD’s charter for “tolerance”, as it were) states, “[w]e affirm the rightto freedom of expression…[w]e promote open expression of our individuality and our diversity within the bounds of courtesy, sensitivity, confidentiality and respect.”34 and towards the goal of fostering inclusiveness, respect, and a welcoming environment35, in order to preserve and enhance social welfare71,72.

The Principles of Community operate under the assumption that not all speech is protected, and have been widely adopted at Dartmouth37; Virginia Tech38 and many others35-36,37-38,75-76. Words and accusations which at their core demean, defame and degrade must be addressed and denounced36. Thus, in general, other countries merely go one step further by banning speech intended to intimidate vulnerable groups. So what we have is: The Fair Expression Continuum (a continuum of constraints & safeguards).

And within this context, universities can limit hate speech that aims to stifle conversation by putting members of the campus community in fear for their well-being. Indeed, it has been demonstrated that this can be done – that is, developing hate speech codes informed by and consonant with international norms [as per the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)5, the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (CPHRFF)39, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)40, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)41, European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)42, European Commission against Racism and Intolerance) (ECRI)8] and including the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR)5, as we have specified them above – without violating the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech83. This recognizeshate speech as fundamentally a campaign of silencing through intimidation – and as such itself threatening the university's "marketplace of ideas" - and with no benefit to educational interactions84. Under law, academic freedom is not a license for harassment, and nor does hate speech further the pursuit for truth, since calling Jews Nazis, women whores, Native Americans savages, Tutsis cockroaches, etc., does not engage the quest of truth, rather being derogatory statements meant to exclude, and like asserting false claims that damage group reputations, such hate speech is academically punishable when it is meant to defame, intimidate, threaten, terrify, or instigate violence or incite to hatred83, and hate, exterminationist, or genocidal symbols such as the swastika or Hamas flag only advance an ideological agenda, with the intent being dehumanizing, degrading, defamatory, and exclusionary, and as such donot implicate the First Amendment. History swells with examples making it clear that hate propaganda was absolutely essential to eventual Nazi' genocide of Jews, the Hutu slaughter of Tutsis in Rwanda, the Islamist Arab Janjaweed's continued mass murder and enslavement of Darfurians, and the Turkish exterminationism perpetrated against Armenians, and other hate-primed and sown exterminations.

► Principle of Community Under International Law: Applications (1) That constraints to expression are legitimate, given that the community’s well-being is society’s most important goal and that expression may be limited in the interests of community harmony.

(2) That, therefore, there is a proactive duty to establish and maintain a "safe, caring and humane environment", a principle enshrined in multiple covenants of international law (as in: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)5, the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (CPHRFF)39, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)40, and the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)41, European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)42, and European Commission against Racism and Intolerance) (ECRI)8, all now customary international law and as such binding on all signing nations,


including the U.S. And this includes even and New York State Unlawful Discriminatory Practices/Human Rights Law88.

(3) Example of the Principle of Community constraining speech is the Twitter lawsuit: Twitter has now been successfully sued, over hate speech hashtags and content (#unbonjuif, #unbonmusulman), under national and international laws in violation of established collective Principles of Community. The Union des Étudiants Juifs Français (UEJF)43 asked Twitter to remove several racist and anti-Semitic tweets under the hashtags #unbonjuif, #unbonmusulman, and #UnJuifMort ("a good Jew", "a good Muslim” and "a dead Jew"), as well as ) that some Twitter users were using to post derogatory comments about Jews and Muslims44,45,85. On March 20, 2013 UEJF in conjunction with four other non-profit human rights organizations (J’accuse/Action Internationale Pour la Justice (AIPJ)46, SOS Racisme47, the Movement Against Racism and for Friendship between Peoples (Mouvement contre le racisme et pour l'amitié entre les peuples) (MRAP)48, and the International League against Racism and Anti-Semitism (Ligue Internationale Contre le Racisme et l'Antisémitisme)/LICRA)49, sued Twitter, for damages of 38.5 million euros ($50 million) in damages, for failing to comply with a Paris Court of Appeal order (Jan 23, 2013) to provide data to French authorities to help identify the authors of the anti-Semitic and racist tweets50. Although Twitter initially refused, it announced on July 12, 2013 that it has provided French judicial authorities with the requested information and has entered into an agreement of cooperation and compliance with UEJF51.

(4) This again puts the lie to the free market fundamentalism of speech perspective (remove all coercive rules and the “marketplace of ideas” will naturally produce the best and most equitable result (journalist/commentator Jeffrey Rosen is one of the foremost advocates52). In this connection, Humboldt State University compiled a visual map that charts 150,000 hateful insults aggregated over the course of 11 months in the U.S. by using DOLLY, a University ofKentucky project that search-enables and maps social media according to geography, to pair Google’s Maps API with a series of the most homophobic, racist, and prejudicial tweets53.

The Geography of Hate (above; click image for live map) map contradicts the notion that the “twittersphere” can organically combat hate speech, but rather is testimony to the fact that without protective regulatory and judicial intervention, hate speech will not dissipate from Twitter and its brethren on its own; as developer Prof. Monica Stephens noted: " they show the significant persistence of hatred in the United States "89.

The velocity of hate outruns truth: common sense and democratic moderation finish last. Nor are antisemitic/anti-Muslim/homophobic tweets best mitigated with Jew-/Muslim-/gay-friendly ones drowned out in a sea of hatred1,3,19,44-51,61-62,69,78,80,85. #BurningGaysIsWrong" will not effectively countervail the calls for the murder and extinction of LGBT's permeating #BrulonsLesGaysSurDu/“Let’s burn gay people" on Twitter. Only protective interventions can motivate social media providers (Twitter/Facebook/Reddit) insensitive and clueless to, and inexperienced with, the signs and tropes of online racism to remove virulent hate content.

In this connection, the SWC Digital Terrorism and Hate Project Report lists 20,000+ hate and terrorism sites, with hate speech online up 30 percent globally compared to 201287, and the hate speech watchdog group Remove Hate


From FB has compiled a list of ~1,200 pages which are manifestly in breach of Facebook’s own Community Standards guidelines90,91. And virulent hate speech is spreading to new technologies such as Instagram, Tumblr, VK.com, and Weebly (a favorite of the repellent Aryan Terror Brigade)87,96. And for predominantly European-based hate content, the Council of Europe (COE)92, the leading human rights organization in Europe (47 member states who are signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR))93, has established a Hate Speech Watch94, a division of their official No Hate Speech Movement95, for comparable monitoring. Note that now all social media providers have adopted Community Standards/Rules (Principles of Community for social media), the constraints on free speech that hate speech regulation warrants.

(5) Nor will it disappear on its own from the hate-drenched and anti-woman Reddit,(consider: /r/nazi, /r/killawoman,/r/killingwomen, /r/rapingwomen, ...54), nor from Facebook (see below). And note that on Reddit women have left orchanged to more male-sounding usernames to avoid facing harassment and intimidation for speaking about even the most gender-neutral topics55.

(6) With regard to Facebook, the Online Hate Prevention Institute (OHPI)56 released a major new report into antisemitism on Facebook to coincide with the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination on March 21st 201357. The report findings demonstrate that Facebook does not really understand antisemitism and has difficulty recognizing even certain very well known types of antisemitism, such as (1) identifying racism directly based on Nazi propaganda, (2) consistently refusing to recognize as, and remove, hate speech pages promoting the anti-Semitic forgery Protocols of the Elders of Zion, (3) refusing to take action on new antisemitism using the strategy of Holocaust inversion to paint Israel and Jews as Nazis, and (4) having trouble in recognizing Holocaust denial as Hate Speech58,59.

(7) Only protective interventions can motivate Twitter, Facebook, Reddit and other social media providers clueless and inexperienced to the signs and memes of online racism to remove racist content. As another example, Twitter is now being sued by International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia (IDAHO)60, an LGBT advocacy organization in France, for the propagation of anti-gay hate speech, and as instanced, for failure to remove #LesGaysDoiventDisparaitreCar (“Gays Must Disappear/Die Because”) and #BrulonsLesGaysSurDu (“Let’s burn gay people") and other viciously antigay hashtags which support hundreds (over 900 as of Aug 13, 2013) calling for the explicit castration, murder and extinction of all LGBT people61,62,85, and the France-based gay rights group SOS Homophobie63 has in parallel also launched an online campaign against Twitter64. And the problem is not of course restricted to antisemitic or anti-LGBT content, but includes Islamophobic and Muslim-hateful content65.

(8) As to cases of Twitter, Reddit, Facebook and others show, hate speech (as opposed to merely offensive speech) does not – as often but naively claimed – democratize speech, rather it monopolizes speech, intimidating and crowding out of the public sphere the intended targets of hate, and all of these social media allow hate speech to attack the dignity of a group, a practice the U.S. Supreme Court called "group libel"66, where group libel was definedas expression that “portrays depravity, criminality ... or lack of virtue of a class of citizens, of any race, color, creed or religion” and exposes those citizens to “contempt, derision, or obloquy.” This was extended and cross-confirmed in the seminal Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. decision67, where the Supreme Court qualified the types of relevant expressions as those that offend “our basic concept of the essential dignity and worth of every human being—a concept at the root of any decent system of ordered liberty”, and consistent with the holding in Beauharnais, group defamations can further be extended to revilement based on ethnicity, nationality, alienage, gender, or sexual orientation68. Thus, the intent of group defamation is to render via false and defamatory imputations an individual’s membership in a group a liability ‘‘by denigrating group-defining characteristics or associating them with bigoted factual claims’’97, against the “public good of inclusiveness” and communal/societal cohesiveness97,98.

(9) In academia, many campus have enacted Principles of Community, construed as the university's proactive duty of care to establish and maintain a "safe, caring and humane environment" in which "discrimination and hatred are not tolerated"70;37-38, prohibiting conduct demeaning or denigrating of individuals and groups.

(10) These considerations collectively therefore remind us that harassing speech is not constitutionally protected speech anywhere1,3,69,80-82. And countries such as Canada, England, France, Germany, The Netherlands, Australia, India and others, who all ban hate speech, have not – as warned against – slipped into totalitarianism, but remain vibrant democracies effectively balancing fair expression with societal Principles of Community.


► Principle of Community: SummaryFree speech absolutism (free speech "über alles") is ignorant, undemocratic, and juridically false: constraints to "freespeech" are legitimate in the furtherance of community harmony and cohesion to assure individual/group dignitary rights to freedom from identity-discrimination (bias/advocacy of hatred or hostility based on identity indicia like (race, ethnicity, religion, national origin, sexual orientation). These Principles of Community are enshrined in multiple covenants of customary international law binding on all signatories, including the U.S, and upheld by U.S. Law9-12 and New York State Law88, recognizing hate speech and false claims as damaging group reputation and erosive of individual/group core identity, inflicting dignitary harms1,3,19,44-51,61-62,69,78-82,85, with the accumulation of vilifying comments, contempt and derision66 engendering an “intimidating, hostile" environment and "atmosphere offear [and] silencing"11,12.

► Hate in the Academia VoiceHate groups and movements regularly cloak themselves with the protective shield of “academic free speech” or "academic freedom" which however has come to mean that liberal academics can express extremist hatred yet expect no one to question their poisonous rants and diatribes or answer back with a reasoned defense, and all this is taking place in the rarefied air of college campuses, where civil discourse and objective scholarly inquiry is the expected norm. This makes the seething hatreds, and reflexive and virulent anti-Israel prejudice that frequently assumes the guise of anti-Zionism in order to evade social censure71,71,99-102,104-114,130-137 all the more unexpected and morally dangerous, as concluded by numerous investigations, reports and studies including those of the U. S. Commission On Civil Rights99-101, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights41 and the United Kingdom’s All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Anti-Semitism102, among other international and national covenants, allowing as the State Department has observed, that criticism of Zionism or Israeli policy have the collateral effect of promoting prejudice against all Jews by demonizing Israel and Israelis and attributing Israel’s perceived faults to its Jewish character”15.

The breathtaking moral fraud, now well-exposed103-106, perpetrated by universities claiming to be diverse and all-inclusive where "diversity of thought" on most campuses today, as noted by Prof Bruce Thornton, is “a continuum that starts at liberal and ends at radical leftist”107. Reflecting on the fact that campuses have become bastions of political progressivism disproportionately associated with the new antisemitism, Abigail Thernstrom, currently Vice Chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights trenchantly – and accurately – characterized American universities as “islands of repression in a sea of freedom"108.

► Silencing through "Academic Freedom"Antisemitic incidents have had the affect of silencing some Jewish students and faculty intimidated, like other subjects of identity-based group hatred and defamation, from expressing their viewpoint publicly71,72,82-84,93-106,111-

114,128,132-133: (1) because their perspectives are systematically excluded from the dominant discourse; (2) because the pervasive stigma illegitimately associated with them identified with the collectivity of Israel systematically undermines and devalues their speech, and (3) because the visceral fear, rage, [and] shock of hate speech against them systematically preempts response; these are the classic three modes of silencing: systematic exclusion, stigmatization, and intimidation109.

Thus, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) admonishes that “it would violate every reasonable notion of student academic freedom to give professors the ability to open classroom discussion for all comments except those critical of the professor’s point of view”110. Hearing repeated calls to "slaughter the Jews" or persistent cries of “Hitler didn’t finish the job” or “let it snow with Jewish ash” or "Shut the fuck up or I’ll saw your head off" is silencing, intimidating and inciteful of hatred and hostility, and not an invitation to the open exchange and debate of free ideas111-114. A university that permits the creation of a hostile environment for certain students cannot legitimately hide from harassment claims behind the First Amendment, especially when the university actively controlled each of the elements which nurtured the environment.

► Profile of Online Hate: Anti-Muslim Bigotry in Social MediaThere is no monopoly on the target of hatred, whether online or on-campus and elsewhere, and Muslims have often been targets: thus one long-standing item on Facebook has been until recently the infamous anti-Muslim “A Pill for Every Muslim” which shows a picture of rows of bullets of various sizes and calibers suggesting the solution is genocide, and with a caption reading "Feeling sick? western society has a cure", posted by a hate group known as Infidel Brotherhood (Australia), shown below:


Besides the efforts of the Online Hate Prevention Institute (OHPI) to combat online hate regardless of target, a unique initiative called the ‘Tell MAMA’ (Measuring Anti-Muslim Attacks) project171 was created in 2012 by the inter-faith organization, Faith Matters, which conducted research and outreach on inter-faith integration, conflict resolution, and extremism prevention in Britain, Pakistan and the Middle East, and directly modeled on the work of the Community Security Trust (CST), which monitors anti-Semitic incidents within Britain’s Jewish community. With Tell MAMA, any Muslim across England and Wales can log any attack that they have experienced that either was based on their Muslim faith, or from someone perceiving them to be Muslim, and Tell MAMA is the first national project to specifically record anti-Muslim hate crime while also offering support to victims of anti-Muslim prejudice.

Three sobering, often disturbing reports document the extent of online anti-Muslim hate speech:(1) the OHPI Anti-Muslim Hate Report172, due to appear later November or December, 2013 pending review of the draft report (this author is one of the reviewers);(2) the APPG Victims of Anti-Muslim Hate Report173, which concluded that online anti-Muslim hate speech is detrimental to social and community cohesion176, countervailing claims of free speech, and noting explicitly that "whilst free speech is a fundamental human right we all must enjoy, where online abuse is either threatening or becomes a racially/religiously motivated crime then we must try and deal with this in a strong yet proportionate manner"177; (3) the Teesside University Anti-Muslim Hate Crime and the Far Right Report175 covering online and offline anti-Muslim hate and which is itself based on extensive records and analysis of anti-Muslim hate content and incidents collected by the Tell MAMA Project.

All are must reading for anyone who may have believed that online and on-campus hate was largely encompassed by antisemitism, anti-LGBT, or anti-racial-minority bigotry and somehow anti-Muslim bias being of minor moment:these documents correct that misunderstanding and present a disturbing reminder of the scope and sweep and hatred everywhere, and the ease of its spread when providers in charge fail to be attuned and vigilant against the voice and face of hate.

OHPI and Tell MAMA are now a part of a nexus of initiatives fighting anti-Muslim bigotry that I and other people of conscience across every spectrum of race and background collaborate with and support to advance the battle hate speech, along with Interfaith efforts such as those of the World Organization for Resource Development and Education (WORDE) Foundation174, an organization dedicated to developing an understanding between Muslims and non-Muslims, in part through bringing youth from different faiths together for dialogue and cooperative community volunteering, to “humanize other communities that have been demonized". And this is all done within a framework respectful of legitimate free speech but intolerant of hate speech hiding under its mantle.

In addition, as we have indicated above in the case of Twitter, international laws are stripping away the putative protection of content providers like social media sites and Wikipedia of a claimed lack of liability for content expressed by users in online postings or user-generated entries, where it has been posited that such content bears freespeech protection and is offered "as is". Like the Twitter case lost on such grounds, Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart ruled (2 Oct, 2013)178 that although the Wikimedia Foundation that operates Wikipedia does not have to fact check entry contents before they are published, it is nonetheless liable for the contents of Wikipedia articles in the sense that it has a duty to check veracity if a complaint is raised and must distinguish between facts and opinions, requiring Wikimedia to fact-check the entry and if necessary remove unverified claims; Wikimedia was ordered by the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart to delete the false passages. Note also that the judgment was applied against the US-based Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), showing that the ambit of such laws can override claims of country-specific applicability.

► Misuse and Abuse of Academic Freedom Case: College Newspapers/NewslettersUnsurprisingly, in almost all current campus controversies, the First Amendment is opportunistically and erroneously invoked. Reflecting on this, Stanley Fish has commented that “In the academy the First Amendment . . .is invoked ritually when there are no First Amendment issues in sight”127. As example: "Take the case of the editors of college newspapers who will always cry First Amendment when something they’ve published turns out to be the cause of outrage and controversy. These days the offending piece or editorial or advertisement usually involves (what is at least perceived to be) an attack on Jews”127. In agreement Kenneth Marcus, former Director of the U.S.


Commission on Civil Rights and currently Director of the Initiative to Combat Anti-Semitism and Anti-Israelism in America's Educational Systems, Institute for Jewish and Community Research (IJCR), has noted: "Many in higher education who cry “First Amendment!” in the face of anti-Semitic harassment frequently are opportunists, consciously or unconsciously, pushing the boundaries of constitutional discourse into an area to which it was not previously extended—and to which it is not well suited ". Fish cited a University of Illinois-Urbana student newspaper which printed a letter arguing that “Jews Manipulate America” and urging the President to “separate Jews from all government advisory positions” lest they “face another Holocaust” and another case of a Santa Rosa Junior College student article which answered in the affirmative the title question: “Is Anti-Semitism Ever the Result of Jewish Behavior?” In both cases, Fish argued that First Amendment claims raised in response to the inevitable uproar were inapposite, since the editors, he explained, have:

(1) absolutely no First Amendment obligation to print objectionable articles on any theme, (2) nor any First Amendment/Free Speech constitutional protection from the consequences provoked from their poorjudgment127.

(As noted bluntly in The Harvard Crimson, "let’s not kid ourselves with all this banter about free speech"129).

► Misuse and Abuse of Academic Freedom Case: Invited SpeakersIn another case of free speech opportunism, Fish argued that the Harvard education department made a fool of itself serially, three times, in inviting, disinviting, and then reinviting controversial poet Tom Paulin to be its Morris Gray Lecturer, an extremist self-acknowledged holocaust denier who believes Israel has no right to exists, that West Banksettlers “should be shot dead,” and that Israeli police and military forces “were the equivalent of the Nazi SS”127. In the best tradition of free speech opportunism and clotted reasoning, a department spokesman claimed that the reinvitation “was a clear affirmation that the department stood strongly by the First Amendment.” In fact, Fish argued, Paulin had no First Amendment right to the invitation, and the department had no obligations other than those brought upon itself through poor judgment.

► Free Speech Opportunism on Campus Thus we see that on today's campuses, free speech claims are often reflexively and unreflectively raised in the context of incidents of incite to hate or bias or group libel and defamation which protypically use words only in support of threatening and harassing behavior which is outside the ambit of free speech constitutional protection128, this being now known as free speech opportunism (efforts to apply First Amendment principles outside of the context in which they have historically been applied in the service of goals that otherwise lack stronger justificatory support)130, with inapposite and often frankly hypocritical free-speech claims becoming the favorite topic-changing device for defenders of all forms of harassment, incitement to hatred, and group defamation, repackaging actionable harassing conducts as speech expression131.

There are therefore indisputable campus hate incidents that do not pose even remotely pose First Amendment concerns, rather, they involve vandalism, rock-throwing, stalking, death threats, arson, and physical intimidation132-

134, all without constitutional protection. Indeed, even some strong First Amendment advocates support harassment bans while opposing speech codes. Thus: Nadine Strossen, former President of the ACLU, has acknowledged that “The ACLU never has argued that harassing, intimidating, or assaultive conduct should be immunized simply because it is in part based on words”137. In addition, a further abuse of the free speech cry is that of the claim of a "chilling" effect of counter-charges of antisemitism, a ruse that has been decisively demonstrated to be absurd, showing that objecting to and exposing defamatory attacks on Israel neither constitutes a threat to free speech nor a strategy for closing down debate on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict135,136,138. (And the Supreme Court has suggested that some hateful expressions may be regulated on the basis of content if the law that does so is based on conduct, asantidiscrimination law is138. Thus, much of the rhetoric and legal argument surrounding campus hate speech and harassment, especially campus antisemitism, is sheer First Amendment opportunism: agenda-driven efforts to change the topic from proscribed harassment, incitement to hatred, collective assignment of guilt (holding Jews collectively responsible for the State of Israel's actions regardless of actual complicity), and group defamation, to free speech in a context in which the First Amendment is inapplicable, and such free speech opportunism infringes aggressively and illegitimately on a core interest of contemporary constitutional and civil rights law: namely that of protecting equal educational opportunities from hostile environment harassment128,130,132. And If we permit campuses to develop environments hostile to Jews, then why not to women and other minorities?


Academia and other communal environments need to finally adopt and commit to Principles of Community definingthe legitimate boundaries and constraints of free speech in furtherance of community harmony and cohesion, dignitary rights, and the fostering of inclusive non-hostile environments free from identity-discrimination, per normsof both international1,3,19,44-51,61-62,69,78-82,85 and national9-12,88 laws.

► References 1. Tsesis, Alexander. Destructive Messages: How Hate Speech Paves the Way for Harmful Social Movements, New York University Press. 2002; p.178. 2. Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 160 (1963) At: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/372/144/case.html. 3. Delgado, Richard and Stefancic, Jean. Must We Defend Nazis? Hate Speech, Pornography, and the New First Amendment. New York university Press. 1977. p.viii. At: http://books.google.com/books?id=oxza0zOGy7YC&q=And+so%2C+today%2C+we+are+all+realists.+#v=onepage&q=%22And%20so%2C%20today%2C%20we%20are%20all%20realists.%22&f=false.4. Delgado, supra, n.3. Chapter 8: “But America Wouldn’t Be America Anymore”.5. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 20(2). At: http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx. Ratification by the United States 8 Jun 1992. At: http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?mtdsg_no=IV-4&chapter=4&lang=en%23EndDec.6. American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR). Department of International Law. Secretariat for Legal Affairs (SLA). Organization of American States. At: http://www.oas.org/dil/treaties_B-32_American_Convention_on_Human_Rights.htm.7. Faurisson v. France] Robert Faurisson v. France, Communication No. 550/1993 , U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/58/D/550/1993(1996). Human Rights Committee. Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civiland Political Rights (ICCPR). At: http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/undocs/html/VWS55058.htm].8. European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI). Council of Europe (CE). At: http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/default_en.asp.9. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 571 (1942 At: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/315/568/case.html. 10. Cutler v. Dorn, 196 N.J. 419 (2008) | At: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-supreme-court/1094280.html. 11. Eltis, Karen. Hate Speech, Genocide, and Revisiting the Marketplace of Ideas in the Digital Age. 43 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 267 (2011-2012). At [subscriber content]: http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/luclj43&div=11&id=&page=]; full-text at: http://luc.edu/media/lucedu/law/students/publications/llj/pdfs/eltis_hate_speech.pdf. 12. Nejat, Kris. How The New Jersey Supreme Court Set A New Precedent With Respect To Religion-Based Hostile Work Environment Claims With Its Holding In Cutler v. Dorn. Journal of Law and Religion. Rutgers Schoolof Law (Camden). Fall, 2008. At: http://org.law.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/new_devs/ND10-5NJSCCutler.pdf. 13, Tsesis, supra, n. 1, p.183. 14. Gauldrault-DesBiens, Jean-Francois. From Sisyphus’s Dilemma to Sisyphus’s Duty? A Meditation on the Regulation of Hate, 46MCGILL L.J. 1117, 1117 (2001). At: http://lawjournal.mcgill.ca/documents/46.4.DesBiens.pdf. Also, as text, at: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/From+Sisyphus%27s+dilemma+to+Sisyphus%27s+duty%3F+A+meditation+on+the...-a0133014228. 15. U.S. Department of State. Report on Global Anti-Semitism. Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. January 5, 2005. At: http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/40258.htm. 16. Marcus, Kenneth Best Practices Guide for Combating Campus Anti-Semitism and Anti-Israelism. The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law. At: http://www.brandeiscenter.com/images/uploads/practices/guide_02.pdf.17. Times v. Sullivan] New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964 At: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/376/254/case.html.18. Tsesis, supra n.1, p.146.19. Allport, Gordon W. The Nature Of Prejudice 57 (3d Ed. 1979) (1954).20. Allport, Gordon W. The Nature of Prejudice: 25th Anniversary Edition. Basic Books; Unabridged edition (January 22, 1979). 21. John F. Dovidio (Editor), Peter Glick (Editor), Laurie Rudman (Editor). On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Yearsafter Allport. Wiley-Blackwell 20005. Online table of contents and summaries: At: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/book/10.1002/9780470773963.


22. Tsesis, supra, n.1, p.147.23. Tsesis, supra, n.1. p.86,87.24. James Weinstein, Participatory Democracy as the Central Value of American Free Speech Doctrine, 97 VA. L. REV. 491, 502 (2011). At: http://www.virginialawreview.org/content/pdfs/97/491.pdf.25. Lewis, Bernard. Race and Slavery in the Middle East: An Historical Enquiry. Oxford University Press. New York. 1990. p.22. Online excerpts, at: http://books.google.com/books?id=WdjvedBeMHYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Race+and+Slavery+in+the+Middle+East:+An+Historical+Enquiry&hl=en&sa=X&ei=onMqUuTFFNbb4AP1s4CoDw&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=early%20Islamic%20poets&f=false.26. Fleischman, J. Mauritania’s Campaign Of Terror: State-Sponsored Repression of Black Africans. Human Rights Watch. April 1994. p.90. At: http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/MAURITAN944.PDF.27. Tsesis, supra, n. 1, p.148.28. Tsesis, supra, n. 1, p.183.29. Tsesis, supra, n. 1, p.184. 30. Hate Speech And The American Convention On Human Rights. Chapter VII. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR). Organization of American States (OAS). At: http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/expression/showarticle.asp?artID=443&lID=1.31. Heyman, Steven J. Righting the Balance: An Inquiry into the Foundations and Limits of Freedom of Expression. Boston University Law Review, Vol. 78, No. 5, 1998. At: http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1307&context=fac_schol.32. Ogletree, Charles J. "Race Relations and Conflicts in the United States The Limits of Hate Speech: Does Race Matter?" 32 Gonzaga Law Review 491 (1997). At: https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=32+Gonz.+L.+Rev.+491&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=9e7cd2294c38c6274c832969b6dc6bde [Subscriber content.33. Tsesis, supra, n. 1, p.153.34. The Principles of Community. Office of Campus Community Relations. University of California, Davis. At: http://www.ucsd.edu/explore/about/principles.html.35. UC San Diego Principles of Community Overview. At: http://www.ucsd.edu/explore/about/principles-overview.html.36. Barton R, Huffman A. The Intersection of Free Speech and Principles of Community. President’s Advisory Council on Campus Climate, Culture, & Inclusion. University of California Jewish Student Campus Climate Fact-Finding Team Report & Recommendations. At: http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/documents/campus_climate_jewish.pdf.37. Dartmouth University. At: http://www.dartmouth.edu/~deancoll/student-handbook/principles.html.38. Virginia Tech. At: http://www.diversity.vt.edu/principles-of-community/principles.html.39. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (CPHRFF). At: http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/en/Treaties/Html/005.htm.40. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). At: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/.41. European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA). At: http://fra.europa.eu/en; Charter: http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/charter-of-fundamental-rights-of-the-european-union-2007-c_303-01_en.pdf.42. European Commission against Racism and Intolerance) (ECRI). At: hhttp://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=home.43. Union des Étudiants Juifs Français (UEJF). At: http://uejf.org/.44. Gordts, Eline. “#UnBonJuif: Anti-Semitic Hashtag Causes Outrage In France”. Huffington Post. October 17, 2012. At: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/16/unbonjuif-twitter_n_1971676.html?view=print.45. Weiss Marie-Andree. “Twitter, France, and Group Libel”. Digital Media Law Project (DMLP). October 29th, 2012. At: http://www.dmlp.org/blog/2012/twitter-france-and-group-libel.46. UEJF Complains to Twitter of Anti-Semitic Tweets. Chilling Effects Clearinghouse. International. Notices. NoticeID 672250. At: https://www.chillingeffects.org/international/notice.cgi?NoticeID=672250. 47. SOS Racisme. At: http://www.sos-racisme.org/.48. Mouvement contre le racisme et pour l'amitié entre les peuples (MRAP). At: http://www.mrap.fr/.49. Ligue Internationale Contre le Racisme et l'Antisémitisme)/LICRA) [International League against Racism and Anti-Semitism]. At: http://licra.org/.50. Walsh Jonathan. “French Court Orders Twitter to Publish Racist Users’ Data”. La Jeune Politique. June 22, 2013. At: http://lajeunepolitique.com/2013/06/22/french-court-orders-twitter-to-publish-racist-users-data/.51. “Twitter releases data to French anti-Semitism probe”. France 24 Intternational News. July 12, 2013. At: http://www.france24.com/en/20130712-twitter-releases-data-french-anti-semitism-probe.


52. Rosen, Jeffrey. “The Delete Squad Google, Twitter, Facebook and the new global battle over the future of free speech”. The New Republic. April 29, 2013. At: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113045/free-speech-internet-silicon-valley-making-rules.53. The Geography of Hate: Geotagged Hateful Tweets in the United States. Humboldt State University. At: http://users.humboldt.edu/mstephens/hate/hate_map.html.54. Zuckerman, Esther. 'Why Is Reddit So Anti-Women?': An Epic Reddit Thread Counts the Ways. The Atlantic Wire. Jul 26, 2012. At: http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2012/07/why-reddit-so-anti-women-epic-reddit-thread-counts-ways/55080/.55. McElwee, Sean. “The Case for Censoring Hate Speech”. Huffington Post. July 24, 2013. At: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sean-mcelwee/hate-speech-online_b_3620270.html.56. Online Hate Prevention Institute (OHPI). Victoria, AU. At: http://ohpi.org.au/.57. Report: Recognizing Hate Speech Antisemitism on Facebook. Online Hate Prevention Institute (OHPI). Report:IR13-1. March 21, 2013 At: http://ohpi.org.au/reports/IR13-1_Recognizing_hate_speech_antisemitism_on_Facebook.pdf.58. “Holocaust denial on Facebook – An Untold Story”. Online Hate Prevention Institute (OHPI). August 11, 2013.At: http://ohpi.org.au/holocaust-denial-on-facebook-an-untold-story/.59. Facebook ignores many occurrences of virulent anti-Semitism”. Fight Hatred. Jabotinsky International Center. April 20, 2013. At: http://www.fighthatred.com/recent-events/online-hate/1160-facebook-ignores-many-occurrences-of-virulent-anti-semitism.60. International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia (IDAHO). At: http://dayagainsthomophobia.org/.61. Morgon, Joe. Twitter to be sued for "incitement to hatred spread against homosexuals" [“Twitter : défouloir pour homophobes” (Twitter: Outlet for Homophobes). Metro News. August 12, 2013. At: http://www.metronews.fr/info/twitter-defouloir-pour-homophobes/mmhl!y71IxbJWBEpPA/.. See also: [Twitter to be sued] Twitter to be sued over ‘Gays Must Die’ hashtag. Gay Star News. August 14, 2013. At: http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/twitter-be-sued-over-%E2%80%98gays-must-die%E2%80%99-hashtag140813.62. Gates, Sara. French Anti-Gay Hashtag Sparks Lawsuit Against Twitter In France. The Huffington Post. Aug. 13m 2013. At: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/13/french-anti-gay-hashtag-gays-must-die-twitter-lawsuit_n_3744780.html. 63. SOS Homophobie. At: http://www.sos-homophobie.org/. 64. Actions contre l'homophobie sur Internet. Signalements auprès de Twitter. SOS Homophobie. At: http://www.sos-homophobie.org/actions-contre-l-homophobie-sur-internet. 65. Islamophobia on Facebook: Hate Against Muslims Crosses the Line”. Online Hate Prevention Institute (OHPI). July 27, 2013. At: http://ohpi.org.au/islamophobia-on-facebook-hate-against-muslims-crosses-the-line/#success.66. Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250 (1952). At: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/343/250/.67. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.. 418 U.S. 323, 341 (1974). At: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/418/323/case.html.68. Tsesis, Alexander. Inflammatory Speech: Offense Versus Incitement, 97 Minn. L. Rev. 1145 (2013). At: http://www.minnesotalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Tsesis_MLR.pdf.69. Cortese, Anthony. Opposing Hate Speech. Praeger. 2006.70. Principles of Community. University of California, Berkeley. At: http://www.berkeley.edu/about/principles.shtml.71. Tobin, Gary A, Weinberg, Aryeh Kaufmann, Ferer, Jenna. The UnCivil University: Intolerance on College Campuses. Lexington Books. Revised Edition edition (May 16, 2009). Available: Executive Summary (as PDF), at: http://jewishresearch.org/PDFs/UnCivil_University_Executive_Summary.pdf. 72. Campus anti-Semitism calls for legal redress. The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law. Nov13, 2012 (adopted from Examiner Interview Series, Nov 14, 2012). At: http://brandeiscenter.com/index.php?/publications/research_opinion_full/interview_series_campus_anti_semitism_calls_for_legal_redress. 73. Kwiecień, Roman. The Primacy of European Union Law Over National Law Under the Constitutional Treaty 6 German Law Journal 1479-1496 (2005). At: http://www.germanlawjournal.com/index.php?pageID=11&artID=649.Fulltext (as PDF): http://www.germanlawjournal.com/pdf/Vol06No11/PDF_Vol_06_No_11_1479-1496_Special Issue_Kwiecien.pdf. 74. Lenaerts, Koen. "In the Union we trust": trust-enhancing principles of Community law. Common Market Law Review. Volume 41 (2004), Issue 2, pp. 317–343. At: http://centers.law.nyu.edu/jmtoc/issue.cfm?id=-1460140525. Subscriber content.br /> 75. Principles of Community. Kansas State University. At: https://www.k-state.edu/about/community.html.76. Principles of Community. California State University, Sacramento. At:


http://www.csus.edu/pubaf/yearofunity/principles.html.77. ARTICLE 19/International Centre Against Censorship. At: http://www.article19.org/. 78. Coliver, Sandra (Editor), D'Souza, Frances and Boyle, Kevin (Contributing editors). Striking A Balance: Hate, Speech, Freedom Of Expression And Non-Discrimination. Article 19. 1992. Fulltext (as PDF) at: http://www.article19.org/pdfs/press/striking-balance-between-the-right-to-free-expression-and-the-right-to-equal.pdf. 79. . . . a libelous publication is not protected by the Constitution. Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250 (1952).” As cited in Ferber v. New York, 458 U.S. 747, 763 (1982). At: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/458/747/case.html. 80. Delgado, R. Words That Wound: Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, Vol. 17, p. 133, 1982. At: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2000918. 81. Love, J. C. Discriminatory Speech and the Tort of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. 47 Wash. & LeeL. Rev. 123 (1990). At: http://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1926&context=wlulr. 82. Hartman, R. G. Revitalizing Group Defamation as a Remedy for Hate Speech on Campus. 71 Or. L. Rev. 855 (1992). At: http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/orglr71&div=38&id=&page=. Subscriber content.83. Tsesis, A. Burning Crosses on Campus: University Hate Speech Codes. 43 Connecticut Law Review 617 (2010). At: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1125&context=facpubs. 84. Lawrence III, Charles R. Crossburning and the Sound of Silence: Antisubordination Theory and the First Amendment, 37 VILL. L. REv. 787, 792 (1992), which observes that "Hate speech frequently silences its victims". At: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2784&context=vlr.85. Farago, Jason. In praise of Vallaud-Belkacem, or why not to tolerate hate speech on Twitter. The Guardian. 2 Jan 2013. At: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/02/praise-vallaud-belkacem-hate-speech-twitter.

86. " . . . Les jeunes sont en effet très sensibles aux violences, y compris verbales, homophobes, qui sont la premièrecause de suicide chez les adolescents dans notre pays". [Trans.: " . . . Young people are indeed very sensitive to homophobic violence, including verbal, which is the leading cause of teen suicide in our country"]. Vallaud-Belkacem, Najat. Minister of Women's Rights and Government (France]. in "Twitter doit respecter les valeurs de la République" [editorial]. Le Monde. 28 Dec, 2012. At: http://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2012/12/28/twitter-doit-respecter-les-valeurs-de-la-republique_1811161_3232.html. 87. Digital Terrorism and Hate Project Report, 2013. Simon Wiesenthal Center. see: SWC Capitol Hill Briefing Unveils New Internet Tool to Combat Online Hate. Simon Wiesenthal Center’s 2013 Digital Terror/Hate Capitol Hill Briefing. Rep. Eliot Engel, N.Y. House Foreign Affairs Committee. At: http://www.wiesenthal.com/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=lsKWLbPJLnF&b=4441467&ct=11658595#.UlA9l1fleSq. In addition: a mobile app (2012) available to law-enforcement, government agencies and policymakers, at: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=etwirl.globalHate&hl=en. [Requires registration, identification and password]. 88. N.Y. EXC. LAW § 296 : NY Code - Section 296: Unlawful discriminatory practices. New York State ExecutiveLaw. Section 296(13). Article 15 (Human Rights Law). At: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/EXC/15/296. 89. Dewey, Caitlin. A map of hate speech on Twitter — sort of. The Washington Post. May 15, 2013. At: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/wp/2013/05/15/a-map-of-hate-speech-on-twitter-sort-of/. 90. RemoveHatefromFB. At: http://removehatefromfb.wordpress.com/.91. Facebook Under Fire for Allowing Hate Speech Against Jews to Proliferate Online. Featured Report. The Algemeiner. Sept. 17, 2013. At: http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/09/17/facebook-under-fire-for-allowing-hate-speech-against-jews-to-proliferate-online/#.92. Council of Europe. At: http://hub.coe.int/web/coe-portal.93. European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). European Count of Human Rights. At: http://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=basictexts&c=#n1359128122487_pointer. PDF of ECHR: http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf.94. Hate Speech Watch. No Hate Speech Movement. Council of Europe. At: http://www.nohatespeechmovement.org/hate-speech-watch/report/2.95. No Hate Speech Movement. Council of Europe. At: http://www.nohatespeechmovement.org/.96. Flock, Elizabeth. U.S. Could Face More Attacks Like Boston, Report on Digital Terror Suggests. U.S. News &World Report. At: http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2013/05/08/us-could-face-more-attacks-like-boston-report-on-digital-terror-suggests_print.html.97. Waldron, Jeremy. The Harm in Hate Speech. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012. 98. Feldman, Stephen M. Hate Speech and Democracy. Review Essay: Jeremy Waldon's The Harm in Hate Speech.


Criminal Justice Ethics, 2013 Vol. 32, No. 1, 78-90. At: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0731129X.2013.777254. 99. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights [Campus Anti-Semitism. Briefing Report. A Briefing Before The United States Commission on Civil Rights Held in Washington, D.C., November 18, 2005. At: http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/081506campusantibrief07.pdf.100. What is Anti-Semitism? U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. At: http://www.eusccr.com/Whatiscampusanti-semitism4907.htm.101. U. S. Commission On Civil Rights Public Education Campaign To End Campus Anti-Semitism. U. S. Commission On Civil Rights. At: http://www.eusccr.com/Ending%20Campus%20Ant-Semitism1.htm].102. All-Party Parliamentary Group Against Anti-Semitism. Parliament, United Kingdom. At: http://www.antisemitism.org.uk/. Report: Report of the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism. At: http://www.antisemitism.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/All-Party-Parliamentary-Inquiry-into-Antisemitism-REPORT.pdf.103. Cravatts, Richard. Antisemitism and the Campus Left. Journal for the Study of Antisemitism. 16 Jan 2012. At: http://www.brandeiscenter.com/images/uploads/articleuploads/CravattsJSA228.pdf. 104. Marcus, Kenneth L. Anti-Zionism as Racism: Campus Anti-Semitism and the Civil Rights Act of 1964; Campus Anti-Semitism. Briefing Report. A Briefing Before The United States Commission on Civil Rights Held in Washington, D.C., November 18, 2005. At: http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/081506campusantibrief07.pdf. 105. Zoloth, Laurie. Fear and Loathing at San Francisco State, in Those Who Forget The Past: The Question Of Anti-Semitism (Ron Rosenbaum ed., 2004); At: http://books.google.com/books?id=ye8altBfGJYC&pg=PA257&lpg=PA257&dq=%22Fear+and+Loathing+at+San+Francisco+State%22&source=bl&ots=Mw2ZdXoR5w&sig=ssbYXSaMxTfY24VCp9uIcY8mWpg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=uZBhUt3oD5Kt4AP6-IGgBQ&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Fear%20and%20Loathing%20at%20San%20Francisco%20State%22&f=false. 106. Rossman-Benjamin, Tammi. Identity Politics, the Pursuit of Social Justice, and the Rise of Campus Antisemitism: A Case Study. Chapter 18 Resurgent Antisemitism: A Global Perspective Edited by Alvin H. Rosenfeld Indiana University Press (June 19, 2013). At: http://www.amchainitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Chapter-18-manuscript.pdf/a> [fulltext PDF.107. Bruce Thornton, “Ideology Trumps Truth on Campus,” City Journal, November 25, 2007, http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2007-11-21bt.html.108. As quoted in: Finn, Chester E. The Campus: “An Island of Repression In a Sea of Freedom”. Commentary. September 1989. At: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/the-campus-an-island-of-repression-in-a-sea-of-freedom/.109. Post, Robert C. Racist Speech, Democracy, and the First Amendment. 32 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 267 (1991). At: http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1924&context=wmlr.110. Letter from David French, President FIRE to Lee C. Bollinger, President, Columbia University (Jan. 10, 2005).St: http://www.thefire.org/pdfs/5100_3550.pdf.111. Campus Anti-Semitism. Briefing Report. A Briefing Before The United States Commission on Civil Rights Held in Washington, D.C., November 18, 2005. At: http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/081506campusantibrief07.pdf. 112. Zoloth, Laurie. Fear and Loathing at San Francisco State, in Those Who Forget The Past: The Question Of Anti-Semitism (Ron Rosenbaum ed., 2004); At: http://books.google.com/books?id=ye8altBfGJYC&pg=PA257&lpg=PA257&dq=%22Fear+and+Loathing+at+San+Francisco+State%22&source=bl&ots=Mw2ZdXoR5w&sig=ssbYXSaMxTfY24VCp9uIcY8mWpg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=uZBhUt3oD5Kt4AP6-IGgBQ&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Fear%20and%20Loathing%20at%20San%20Francisco%20State%22&f=false. 113. Offman, Craig. “Campuses Awash in Tension over Israel Apartheid Week,” National Post, March 2, 2009. At: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1343206. 114. Cravatts, Richard L. "Is Assaulting Jewish Students on Canadian Campuses Now Legitimate Criticism of Israel? Troubling pattern of tolerating physical and emotional assaults by pro-Palestinian radicals against Jewish students". Canada Free Press. 10 February 2010. At: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/19872.115. Shane, Scott & Mekhennet, Souad. Imam’s Path From Condemning Terror to Preaching Jihad. New York Times. May 8 2010. At: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/world/09awlaki.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0.116. Greenfield, Daniel. Muslim Hate Groups on Campus. David Horowitz Freedom Center/DHFC (December 8, 2011). Available at: http://frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/mhgc.pdf. 117. FBI surveillance reveals terrorist-linked cleric Anwar al-Awlaki had a taste for pizza and call girls. NBC News. July 2, 2013. At: http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/02/19254447-fbi-surveillance-reveals-terrorist-linked-cleric-anwar-al-awlaki-had-a-taste-for-pizza-and-call-girls?lite.


118. FBI Intelligence re Anwar al-Awlaki. Obtained by Judicial Watch, via FOIA (Freedom of Information Act). May 31, 2013. Fulltext (online and PDF) at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/149699460/1488-05312013. 119. Abdurahman Alamoudi [former National President of Muslim Students Association (MSA)] Sentenced To JailIn Terrorism Financing Case. U.S. Department of Justice. October 15, 2004. Available at: http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2004/October/04_crm_698.htm. 120. Muslim Students Association. Dossier. Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT). At: http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/31.pdf.121. Jerry Markon, “Final Defendant Guilty in Va. Jihad”. Washington Post. June 7, 2006. At: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/06/AR2006060601142.html. 122. "Maryland Man Arrested on Charges of Providing Material Support to Lashkar-e-Taiba, a Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization”. U.S. Department of Justice. September 16, 2005. At: http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2005/September/05_crm_482.html. 123. Stakelbeck, Erick. Muslim Student Group a Gateway to Jihad? CBN News. August 29, 2011. At: http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2011/march/muslim-student-group-a-gateway-to-jihad//.124. Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP). Profile, Discover the Networks. At: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6379. 125. Khalid Yasin. Discover the Networks. Profile. At: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2319. 126. Toameh, Khaled Abu. "On Campus: The Pro-Palestinians' Real Agenda". Gatestone Institute. March 24, 2009. At: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/424/on-campus-the-pro-palestinians-real-agenda. 127. Stanley Fish, The Free-Speech Follies, Chronicle of Higher Education. June 13, 2003. At: http://chronicle.com/article/The-Free-Speech-Follies/45247.128. Marcus, Kenneth L. Higher Education, Harassment, and First Amendment Opportunism. 16 William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal. Volume 16, issue 4, article 5, 1025-1059. 2008. At: http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1052&context=wmborj. 129. Steorts, Jason L. "Free Speech Paranoia. The Harvard Crimson. November 22, 2002. At: http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2002/11/25/free-speech-paranoia-when-you-are-losing/#. 130. Schauer, Frederick. First Amendment Opportunism. Kennedy School of Government. Harvard University. KSG Working Paper No. 00-011, 2010. At: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=253832. Fulltext available as PDF.131. Schauer, Frederick. The Speech-ing of Sexual Harassment. Kennedy School of Government. Harvard University. KSG Working Paper No. 00-012, 2010. At: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=253828.Fulltext available as PDF.132. Marcus, Kenneth L.Â Anti-Zionism as Racism: Campus Anti-Semitism and the Civil Rights Act of 1964; Campus Anti-Semitism. Briefing Report. A Briefing Before The United States Commission on Civil Rights Held in Washington, D.C., November 18, 2005. At: http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/081506campusantibrief07.pdf. 133. Zoloth, Laurie. Fear and Loathing at San Francisco State, in Those Who Forget The Past: The Question Of Anti-Semitism (Ron Rosenbaum ed., 2004); At: http://books.google.com/books?id=ye8altBfGJYC&pg=PA257&lpg=PA257&dq=%22Fear+and+Loathing+at+San+Francisco+State%22&source=bl&ots=Mw2ZdXoR5w&sig=ssbYXSaMxTfY24VCp9uIcY8mWpg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=uZBhUt3oD5Kt4AP6-IGgBQ&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Fear%20and%20Loathing%20at%20San%20Francisco%20State%22&f=false. 134. Rossman-Benjamin, Tammi. Identity Politics, the Pursuit of Social Justice, and the Rise of Campus Antisemitism: A Case Study. Chapter 18 Resurgent Antisemitism: A Global Perspective Edited by Alvin H. Rosenfeld Indiana University Press (June 19, 2013). At: http://www.amchainitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Chapter-18-manuscript.pdf [fulltext PDF].135. Harrison, Bernard. The Resurgence of Anti-Semitism: Jews, Israel and Liberal Opinion. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers (October 27, 2006). At: http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Resurgence_of_Anti_Semitism.html?id=5yvm1eF3gWoC. 136. Harrison, Bernard. Israel, Anti-Semitism and Free Speech. American Jewish Committee. October 2007. At: http://www.ajc.org/atf/cf/%7B42d75369-d582-4380-8395-d25925b85eaf%7D/ISRAEL_ANTI-SEMITISM_AND_FREE_SPEECH.PDF.137. Strossen, Nadine. Regulating Racist Speech on Campus: A Modest Proposal? Duke Law Journal 484-573 (1990). At: http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3116&context=dlj.138. R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.200 S. 377, 389 (1992). At: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/505/377/.139. Judicial Watch: Financial Records Link al-Aulaqi to 9/11 Hijackers. Center for Security Policy. 8 April 2013.


At: http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2013/04/08/judicial-watch-financial-records-link-al-aulaqi-to-911-hijackers/.140. Susan Schmidt, “Imam from Va. Mosque Now Thought to Have Aided Al-Qaeda,” Washington Post, February27, 2008, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/26/AR2008022603267_pf.html.141. JW Obtains FBI Records Detailing Banking Activity and Purchases Linking Anwar al-Aulaqi and 9/11 Hijackers. Judicial Watch. 28 March 2013. At: http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/jw-obtains-fbi-records-detailing-banking-activity-and-purchases-linking-anwar-al-aulaqi-and-911-hijackers/ 142. FOIA Complaint: FiledComplaintFBI6_4. Plaintiff Judicial Watch, Inc. Case 1:12-cv-00893. Document 1. Filed 06/04/12. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. At: http://www.scribd.com/doc/96298921/FiledComplaintFBI6-4#fullscreen.143. Testimony of Dr. Michael Waller, Annenberg Professor of International Communication, The Institute of World Politics. United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary. "Terrorist Recruitment and Infiltration in the United States: Prisons and Military as an Operational Base". October 14, 2003. At: http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/congress/2003_h/031014-waller.htm.144. Abdulrahman Alamoudi - Head of American Muslim Council goes to jail for 23 years. Militant Islam Monitor.29 Oct 2004. At: http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/library/congress/2003_h/031014-waller.htm.145. Report: Islamic Center of Tuscon. Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT). At: http://www.investigativeproject.org/case/419/a>..146. Report: The Muslim Students Association's Terror Problem. IPT News. Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT). Aug 20,2010. At: http://www.investigativeproject.org/2118/the-muslim-students-associations-terror-problem. 147. IPT Investigative Report: The Rise of Lashkar-e Tayyiba - A Magnet for American Jihadists. Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT). At: http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/testimony/373.pdf#16. 148. Affidavit In Support Of Application For Search Warrant (October 2003). In The United States District Court For The Eastern District Of Virginia. Alexandria Division. United States Customs Service (“uscs”) in Baltimore, Maryland. At: http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/case_docs/891.pdf [PDF]. 149. FBI eyes Muslim student groups. The Washington Times. Dec 24, 2001. At: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2001/dec/24/20011224-034240-4631r/.150. Levitt, Matthew . The Network of Terrorist Financing. The Washington Institute. Policy #646 August 6, 2002. At: http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/the-network-of-terrorist-financing. 151. The Muslim Students Association and the Jihad Network. A Report by the Terrorism Awareness Project. 2008.At: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/MSA and Jihad Network v5b-1.pdf.152. Report: Al-Talib / MSA UCLA. Discover the Networks. At: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printgroupProfile.asp?grpid=7384.153. Report: Benevolence International Foundation. GlobalSecurity.org. At: http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/profiles/benevolence_international_foundation.htm.154. Report: GLOBAL RELIEF FOUNDATION (GRF). Security Council Committee pursuant to resolutions 1267 (1999) and 1989 (2011 concerning Al-Qaida and associated individuals and entities. United Nations Security Council. 7 Sept 2010. At: http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/NSQE09102E.shtml.155. IPT Backgrounder: Global Relief Foundation. Treasury Department Designaton of Global Relief Foundation. Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT). Oct 18, 2002. At: http://www.investigativeproject.org/document/id/28. 156. Treasury Designates Benevolence International Foundation and Related Entities as Financiers of Terrorism. U.S. Department of the Treasury. Press Release. 11/19/2002. At: http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/po3632.aspx.157. No Cash for Terror - Convictions Returned in Holy Land Case. Federal Bureau of Investigation. 11/25/08. At: http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2008/november/hlf112508.158. Kovack, Gretel C. Five Convicted in Terrorism Financing Trial. New York Times. Nov 24, 2008. At: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/25/us/25charity.html?_r=0. 159. Report: Holy Land Foundation For Relief And Development (HLF). Discover the Networks. At: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printgroupProfile.asp?grpid=6181. 160. Dowd-Gailey, Jonathan. Islamism's Campus Club: The Muslim Students' Association. Middle East Quarterly Spring 2004 (Vol XI: No.2), pp. 63-72. At: http://www.meforum.org/603/islamisms-campus-club-the-muslim-students. 161. Hachache, Abdulrahman. The Assassinations of Sheikh Yassin and Dr. Rantissi. Al-Kalima. Muslim Student Association. University of Carlifornia, Irvine Chapter. June 2004 Volume VI - Issue 3. At: http://www.alkalima.com/?page=Archives&vol=6&issue=3&id=51. 162. Kamran Bokhari: Strategic Forecasting's Terrorism Intelligence Report's 'Islamist Disservice'. Militant Islam Monitor. Aug 3, 2004. At: http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/233.


163. Ronson, Jon. “Oh, What a Lovely Jihad,” Guardian, March 29, 1997. As cited in Reference #120, supra. Full-text reproduced by The Free Republic, at: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/980782/posts. 164. “Abdurahman Alamoudi Sentenced to Jail in Terrorism Financing Case,” U.S. Department of Justice Press Release, October 15, 2004. At: http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2004/October/04_crm_698.htm. 165. “Treasury Designates MIRA for Support to Al Qaida.” US Treasury Department Press Release. July 14, 2005. At: http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/js2632.aspx.166. Report: Muslim Students Association—Ohio State University (OSU-MSA). Discover the Networks. 1/15/2013. At: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printgroupProfile.asp?grpid=7404. 167. Lopez, Clare M. History of the Muslim Brotherhood Penetration of the U.S. Government. Gatestone Institute. April 15, 2013. At: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3672/muslim-brotherhood-us-government. 168. Baran, Zeyno. The Muslim Brotherhood's US Network. Current Trends in Islamist Ideology vol. 6. Hudson Institute. February 27th, 2008. At: http://www.currenttrends.org/research/detail/the-muslim-brotherhoods-us-network. 169. Zaida, Supna. "Moderate" Muslims v. American-Muslims. Gatestone Institute. Feb 5, 2009. At: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/291/moderate-muslims-v-american-muslims. 170. Islamophobia on Facebook: Hate Against Muslims Crosses the Line. Briefing. 27 July, 2013. Online Hate Prevention Institute (OHPI). Victoria, AU. At: http://ohpi.org.au/islamophobia-on-facebook-hate-against-muslims-crosses-the-line/.171. Tell MAMA (Measuring Anti-Muslim Attacks) Project. At: http://tellmamauk.org/.172. Anti-Muslim Hate Report. Online Hate Prevention Institute (OHPI). Victoria, AU. At: http://ohpi.org.au/anti-muslim-hate-report/.173. Awan, Imran. Victims of Anti-Muslim Hate. All-Party Parliamentary Group On Islamophobia. 11 Sept, 2013. At: http://tellmamauk.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/appg.pdf. 174. World Organization for Resource Development and Education (WORDE) Foundation. At: http://www.worde.org/.175. Copsey J, Dack J, Littler M, Feldman M. Anti-Muslim Hate Crime and the Far Right. Teesside University. Centre for Fascist, Anti-Fascist and Post-Fascist Studies. July, 2013. At: http://tellmamauk.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/antimuslim2.pdf. 176. supra, n.173 (Awan), p. 25. 177. supra, n.173 (Awan), p.4. 178. OLG Stuttgart · Judgment of 2 October 2013 · 4 Case No. U 78/13. OpenJur Database. At: http://openjur.de/u/655558.print [in German]; English translation, at: http://translate.google.com/translate?depth=1&hl=en&prev=_dd&rurl=translate.google.ca&sl=de&tl=en&u=http://openjur.de/u/655558.print. Reported by: Essers, Loek. Wikimedia is liable for contents of Wikipedia articles, German court rules. IDG News Service/PCWorld. 27 Nov, 2013. At: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2067460/wikimedia-is-liable-for-contents-of-wikipedia-articles-german-court-rules.html. 179. George, C. Hate Speech Law and Policy. The International Encyclopedia of Digital Communication and Society. 2014;1–10. 180. ARTICLE 19. Camden Principles on Freedom of Expression and Equality. 23 Apr 2009. At: http://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/1214/en/camden-principles-on-freedom-of-expression-and-equality. Fulltext (PDF): http://www.article19.org/data/files/medialibrary/1214/Camden-Principles-ENGLISH-web.pdf. 181. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Organization of American States. At: http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/.182. American Convention On Human Rights "PACT Of San Jose, Costa Rica" (B-32). Organization of American States. At: http://www.oas.org/dil/treaties_B-32_American_Convention_on_Human_Rights.htm. 183. African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights. At: http://www.african-court.org/en/. 184. The African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights. African Union. At: http://www.au.int/en/organs/cj. 185. du Plessis P. Freedom of Speech – Should Speech that Causes Harm be Free? An International and South African Perspective. Mediterranean J Soc Sci 2014;5(23):1363-72.186. Tsesis A. Free Speech Constitutionalism. University of Illinois Law Review 2015. Loyola University Chicago School of Law Research Paper No. 2014-2/03.


Evidence-Based Reports: Our Reporting

Imperative in this context is a new equity in geopolitics that eschews disproportionate approbation of one actor to the exclusion of all others while also acknowledging the competitive narratives of national ambition and identity in the Middle East, with the need for new engagement and negotiation.

This misplaced and uncritical reliance on ideological and prejudicial sources has evolved to be a formidable obstacleto peace in the Middle East. It has led to what others have termed a new “soft powerlessness” for Israel whose legitimacy has been successively eroded and who stands accused and convicted in the international arena. And it helps account for the current moribund state of peace negotiation. We therefore realized that what is needed to overcome these barriers to peace is effective confrontation through the exposure and refutation of lawfare as practiced by various anti-peace NGOs and obstructionist initiatives. This will in turn require a new rational and equitable discourse in addressing the clash of competitive nationalist aspirations for self-determination in the same land, in order to achieve a fair and durable peace in the Middle East for Israel, and for the Palestinians.

To that end, I as Director of Progressive Voices for Peace in the Middle East (PVPME) and a member of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East (SPME), have authored and compiled a series of evidence-based reports (EBRs) on the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict which are founded on an objective critical systemic review of the core issues and a critical appraisal of the relevant arguments, sustained by scrupulous attention to and respect for principles of international and human rights law. This demands (1) systematic review of all credible sources on an issue, (2) critical appraisal of all sources extracted for factual basis, (3) cross-confirmation of accuracy wherever viable, and (4) use of the highest caliber of sources available, with preference to peer-reviewed literature.

These evidence-based reports hone to the principles of the evidence-based paradigm and methodology as it has evolved from initial domain of application (medicine) into a broad spectrum of evidence-based practice and research, in the form of evidence-based sociology, evidence-based education and evidence-based teaching, evidence-based psychology, evidence-based crime policy / policing, evidence-based decision making /policy, evidence-based social work, among many others. We also commit to industry-standards promulgated by the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) in their SPJ Code of Ethics, the guidelines for online journalism issued by Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism in their What are the ethics of online journalism?, and the elements of PIRC (Public-Interest Responsible Communication), especially the Verification Of The Reliability Of Sources, the Independent Verification of Factual Assertions, the Transparency with Sources, and Assessing Objectivity. (For a good summary, see Elements of "Responsible" Journalism of the Canadian Journalism Project, a project of The Canadian Journalism Foundation in collaboration with leading Canadian journalism schools and organizations).
