More violent pro-Hamas, anti-American, antisemitic attacks on our college campuses -- NO, THIS IS NOT AND NEVER HAS BEEN CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED FREE SPEECH!
| Claim | Result | Source Reference | Source Quote |
|---|---|---|---|
| Violent pro-Hamas, anti-American, antisemitic attacks are happening on college campuses. | inconclusive | https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/03/opinion/antisemitism-jews-campus.html | |
| Violent pro-Hamas, anti-American, antisemitic attacks are happening on college campuses. | rejected | https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/12/us/campus-unrest-israel-gaza-antisemitism.html | Here are some of the episodes that have added to the tensions on campuses, including dueling protests, calls for the ouster of school leaders and threats from angry donors and alumni to pull funding: |
| These violent acts are not constitutionally protected free speech. | verified | https://reason.com/volokh/2024/08/22/first-amendment-doesnt-protect-speech-that-solicits-a-specific-crime/ | But I think it's also worth noting that speech urging the commission of a specific crime against a specific target is likely constitutionally unprotected even in America. In particular, calling for people to blow up a particular mosque (which is what the woman mentioned in the article seemed to be doing) or burn down a particular hotel would almost certainly fall within the "solicitation" exception to the First Amendment (or perhaps within the "solicitation" facet of the broader "speech integral to criminal conduct" exception). |
| These violent acts are not constitutionally protected free speech. | verified | https://reason.com/volokh/2021/03/05/anti-riot-act-partly-upheld-partly-struck-down-2/ | We agree. The First Amendment protects that kind of advocacy. |
🤖 Conclusion [35/100]: The statement claims that there are violent pro-Hamas, anti-American, antisemitic attacks on US college campuses and asserts such acts are not and never have been Constitutionally protected free speech.
On the first part, the referenced sources are mixed, with one not providing direct evidence (NYT Opinion piece) and one rejecting the claim by only describing heightened tensions, protests, and controversy, but not documenting systematic violent attacks. News coverage recognizes antisemitism and pro-Palestinian protests but substantial, coordinated, violent attacks are not well-documented. Thus, the claim of widespread violent attacks is not substantiated.
On the second part, the legal sources are correct that violent acts and direct incitement to violence are not protected by the First Amendment. However, even some extreme advocacy is allowed, as context matters and not all harsh/controversial speech is unprotected (see Brandenburg v. Ohio standard).
Thus, the statement is partially true about the legal principle but overstates the factual situation on campuses. Score: 35.