Does Trump respect the First Amendment?

Antisemitism is on the rise, but restricting freedom of speech is not the solution.

Is it possible to outlaw antisemitism? Donald Trump seems to believe such a feat is achievable, which is why in January he issued an executive order – ‘Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism’ – to address the anti-Jewish harassment on university campuses. Trump has also withdrawn $400 million of funding to Columbia University because of its perceived failure to rectify the problem. And this week Mahmoud Khalil, a former graduate student at Columbia, has been arrested for engaging in ‘activities aligned to Hamas’.

Whether this represents a threat to free speech depends upon a number of factors. While expressions of sympathy for even the most immoral ideologies are protected by the First Amendment, active participation in terrorist activities is not. We would be ill-advised to say too much about the arrest of Khalil, given that so few details have been reported. We know that he played a leading role in last year’s anti-Israel protests at Columbia, and the lack of transparency from the authorities has led some to conclude that this is the main reason for his arrest. However, at present we simply do not know whether Khalil has been apprehended for what he has said or what he has done. This distinction is key.

Irrespective of the outcome of this particular case, the time seems apt to open up a discussion about how to tackle the rising antisemitism and even overtly fascistic sentiments coming from the left. Many people fear that Trump is leaning towards the solution advocated by the woke, which is to use the force of law to silence and prohibit rebarbative viewpoints. Last week he posted the following on Truth Social:

As ever with Trump, it is tricky to discern the substance through the bluster. If by ‘illegal protests’ he means illegal behaviour that arises during protests – such as harassment, violence and threats – then few will complain. But if he means that peaceful protesters should have their rights restricted due to the poor conduct of a minority within their ranks, then we are right to be wary. Is the phrase ‘NO MASKS!’ simply an expression of Trump’s disdain for those who choose to remain anonymous while demonstrating, or a suggestion that he will seek to prohibit this right? If the latter, it would endanger those whose cause is so controversial that their identities must be protected. If nothing else, the lack of clarity is a reminder of why policies should not be announced on social media.

All of this raises serious questions concerning the principle of free speech as enshrined in the First Amendment…

To continue reading this article, please consider becoming a paid subscriber…