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 have occurred on college campuses. | rejected | https://www.cnn.com/business/live-news/columbia-university-palestine-protests-04-26-24 | Columbia University: The university banned a student spokesperson for the Columbia University Apartheid Divest coalition who said in January “Zionists don’t deserve to live.” He subsequently apologized. |
| Violent pro-Hamas, anti-American, antisemitic attacks have occurred on college campuses. | inconclusive | https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/01/us/colleges-failed-controlling-antisemitic-harassment-report | |
| Such attacks are not and never have been constitutionally protected free speech. | inconclusive | https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-free-speech-is-under-attack-in-the-u-s/ | |
| Such attacks are not and never have been constitutionally protected free speech. | inconclusive | https://www.npr.org/transcripts/616085863?storyId=616085863?storyId=616085863 |
🤖 Conclusion [20/100]: The statement makes two core claims: (1) that there have been violent pro-Hamas, anti-American, antisemitic attacks on college campuses, and (2) that such attacks are and never have been constitutionally protected free speech.
For the first claim of violent attacks, the provided sources do not substantiate the occurrence of violent pro-Hamas or antisemitic attacks. One source references a student who made a hateful statement but who was subsequently disciplined by the university, and it does not describe a violent attack, just speech. Other sources are inconclusive about the prevalence or nature of violent incidents. Thus, this part of the statement is not supported by the evidence.
For the second claim, while violence (physical attacks) is not protected free speech under the Constitution, as physical acts go beyond speech, the sources do not directly address this claim and are inconclusive. Speech—however offensive or hateful—is generally protected unless it incites imminent lawless action or constitutes a true threat, but actual violence is not. Since the first part of the statement is unsupported, and the legal analysis in the second part is incomplete in the sources, overall the truthfulness is quite low, though not zero.
I assign a score of 20/100.