Title: Arkansas Law Is Used to Suppress Pro-Palestinian Speakers - The New York Times
None Dare Call it Censorship!
Someone asked me some time ago for evidence that Charles Koch supports National Conservatism. What he supports, as currently with Nikki Haley, and as in 2016 with Trump, are the most zealous, vicious Zionists that there are in the US. Which defaults to Republicans (see below). But he, and his “Network,” don’t limit themselves to “passively” supporting Republican Zionists/National Conservatives in elections. They also, and more importantly, work to “silence”(censor) critics of Israel, as the movie “Boycott” is about. Which can be watched free at the link below. As I highly recommend to see what “Saint Charles” does on behalf of Israeli Settlers and the Israeli “Military Industrial Complex,” which the Koch Network is part of, as I shared some news of the other day. Notwithstanding that minuscule amount of money he intermittently dribbles to “anti-war” groups, to maintain a facade of being for “peace,” for some libertarians; which is only to inhibit criticism of his Military Industrial Complex activities, in my opinion. Which can be deduced as an ideological fraud when one sees how he waged “cognitive war” against critics of Israel, through his ALEC front-group:
BLUF: "In dissent, Circuit Judge Jonathan Kobes, nominated by former President Donald Trump, took issue with Kelly’s focus on the breadth of “other actions,” writing that the phrase should reasonably be interpreted as referring to commercial actions harmful to Israeli-American trade, which are not protected under the First Amendment, rather than verbal, expressive speech, which is protected. . . . In the majority opinion, Kobes wrote that Act 710 did not require the Times “to publicly endorse or disseminate a message. Instead, the certification targets the noncommunicative aspect of the contractors’ conduct—unexpressive commercial choices.”
The en banc decision was 10-1, with only Kelly dissenting, The Jerusalem Postreported. Reason wrote that Kelly maintained her position that the “other actions” phrase was too broad and could lead to infringement on Free Speech.”
Predictably, with Trump and Bush Conservative Justices: "On Feb. 21, 2023, the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal, letting the Arkansas law stand."
With this NYT article at bottom explaining the practical results today, with Gaza under a genocidal Israeli attack, as is the West Bank, on a smaller scale. But if you’re in Huckabee’s Arkansas, or DeSantis’s Florida, or any other state where Charles Koch and his Network worked and succeeded at passing laws, as in Texas where Republicans are in virtual total control, all designed to delegitimize criticism of Israel, you put yourself at legal risk if you criticize Israel. At least, at a minimum of being denounced as an “anti-semite.” As Trump made that US policy, from the RS article below: "In this context, the fact that Trump — who appears to be systematically ticking off every item on the “in our wildest dreams” wishlist of the pro-Israel far-right — used an executive order to codify a free speech exception for Israel is wholly unsurprising.”
BLUF: “On campuses across America, pro-Hamas protesters are harassing Jews, praising terrorism, and calling for the destruction of Israel,” Ms. Sanders, a Republican, wrote on social media. “That is unacceptable and won’t happen in Arkansas.”
. . .
"For some on campus, the incident with Mr. Thrall was the latest example of speech on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict being discouraged, (TP-censored, to be correct!) and without much of the fanfare that can attend free-_expression_ fights at colleges elsewhere.
. . .
"Bart Hester(featured the movie, Boycott), a state senator and an evangelical Christian, was the lead sponsor of the Arkansas legislation. In an interview, he said that he was a supporter of free speech but that he had no qualms about the speech implications of his bill. It was an easy decision, he said, to “support Israel over terrorists.”
“If Israel is overtaken or wiped out like the Palestinians want — they want no Israel to exist, no Jewish person to exist — then that makes the Middle East less stable and the United States less safe,” he said, adding: “We know that we have a connection to the Jewish people. We serve the same God. And we have a responsibility, in my opinion, to do what we can to protect them.”
"Mr. Hester said that he intended the bill to apply to companies but that he was glad it was preventing speakers like Mr. Thrall from talking on campuses.”
. . .
"The cancellation occurred after conservatives inside and outside the university complained that the panel was antisemitic and would lead to indoctrination.”
What-t-f do they breed such imbeciles from?
There’s indoctrination going on, all right; fascist indoctrination!
With this as an embedded link in the NYT article: https://lawfare.fmep.org/, with the RS Lara Friedman article referenced in it.
I criticize Responsible Statecraft/Quincy Institute, when their “Conservative-wing" put on programs featuring Trumpite/Republican “historical revisionists,” as this was with National Conservative Saurabh Sharma and Trump groupie Mollie Hemingway (https://quincyinst.org/event/the-new-right-ukraine-marks-major-foreign-policy-shift-among-conservatives) featured in it. Or with any other right-wing fanatics of Hemingway’s “The Federalist” whom they feature sometimes.
But applaud them when their non-Trumpite wing features sound analysis of foreign policy, or in this case, by Lara Friedman against Trumpite/Republican-Zionist censorship:
"What will that mean in practice? . . . Likewise, experts and academics on Israel-Palestine like me, or like my colleagues in Israeli human rights groups, talking about their areas of expertise? Say it with me now: Antisemitism.”
. . .
"In this context, the fact that Trump — who appears to be systematically ticking off every item on the “in our wildest dreams” wishlist of the pro-Israel far-right — used an executive order to codify a free speech exception for Israel is wholly unsurprising. Likewise, the actual text of the order was entirely predictable, given that it’s merely the latest iteration of legislation that was first introduced in Congress in 2016, known as the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act (ASAA).”
"Anti-Semitism Awareness Act of 2019” co-sponsors: (all Republicans in the House, and mostly Rs in the Senate, from its small bi-partisan beginning in 2016, introduced by Sen. Scott (R)).
Reading this about Arkansas brought to mind this song, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHsG8r-FZ6o, though it only refers to Arkansas, as the singer's eagerness in leaving Mississippi. But MS has the same kind of laws, predictably, as a Republican state (though to be fair, this isn’t exclusive to Republicans, except disproportionally:
At University of Arkansas, a State Law Stifles Pro-Palestinian Speakers
To receive a modest speaker’s fee, academics and writers must sign a pledge that they will not participate in anti-Israel boycotts. The author Nathan Thrall said no thank you.
To the writer Nathan Thrall, the Arkansas law is an example of how pro-Palestinian speech has been systematically suppressed. Mike Kai Chen for The New York Times
Sign up for the Israel-Hamas War Briefing. The latest news about the conflict.
A few weeks ago, Nathan Thrall, a Jewish American writer whose work strongly supports Palestinian rights, was invited to speak to students at the University of Arkansas about a new book.
But there was one catch: To be paid for his visit, Mr. Thrall was told that he had to pledge, according to a 2017 state law, that he would not boycott Israel. He declined.
When news broke that Mr. Thrall would not sign the pledge, Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders applauded the university.
“On campuses across America, pro-Hamas protesters are harassing Jews, praising terrorism, and calling for the destruction of Israel,” Ms. Sanders, a Republican, wrote on social media. “That is unacceptable and won’t happen in Arkansas.”
At college campuses around the country, students and faculty have been engulfed in vitriolic debates over students’ pro-Palestinian speech. There have been loud dueling protests and angry donors registering their displeasure on social media. Brandeis, Columbia and George Washington University have banned or suspended pro-Palestinian student protest groups.
At a large public university in a more conservative state like Arkansas, the debate is playing out in a somewhat different way. Well before the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas, state lawmakers had tried to control the debate on the Middle East, for instance demanding in the 2017 law that anyone contracting with the state sign a pledge against boycotting Israel.
On campuses across the United States, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has heightened tensions over academic freedom and free _expression_.Melyssa St. Michael for The New York Times
For some on campus, the incident with Mr. Thrall was the latest example of speech on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict being discouraged, and without much of the fanfare that can attend free-_expression_ fights at colleges elsewhere.
Two weeks ago, a panel for students featuring two Middle East experts was quietly canceled by the university after it was attacked for being antisemitic.
The incidents have left some faculty and students unsettled, asking whether academic freedom on the conflict exists and whether the university has picked a side.
“We need clarification from our administration as faculty members about what our rights are, and to what extent the administration will stand by us when we’re exercising our role as academics,” said Joel Gordon, a historian who was to speak on the panel.
Arkansas is not the only state with a law aiming to discourage criticism of Israel. In recent years at least 30 states (see have restricted state contractors from boycotting Israel, a response to the Boycott, Divest and Sanctions movement that tries to put economic and political pressure on the country.
But the law in Arkansas is among the most stringent. Those contracting with the state for as little as $1,000 must sign the pledge — an amount that often does not even cover airfare and lodging for a university speaker.
Bart Hester, the state senator who sponsored the Arkansas anti-boycott legislation.Melyssa St. Michael for The New York Times
Bart Hester, a state senator and an evangelical Christian, was the lead sponsor of the Arkansas legislation. In an interview, he said that he was a supporter of free speech but that he had no qualms about the speech implications of his bill. It was an easy decision, he said, to “support Israel over terrorists.”
“If Israel is overtaken or wiped out like the Palestinians want — they want no Israel to exist, no Jewish person to exist — then that makes the Middle East less stable and the United States less safe,” he said, adding: “We know that we have a connection to the Jewish people. We serve the same God. And we have a responsibility, in my opinion, to do what we can to protect them.”
Mr. Hester said that he intended the bill to apply to companies but that he was glad it was preventing speakers like Mr. Thrall from talking on campuses.
“Keeping someone who wants to come speak on behalf of terrorists off our college campuses is a win,” he said.
Mr. Thrall would have spoken about his new book “A Day in the Life of Abed Salama,” about a deadly bus crash outside Jerusalem and a Palestinian father’s journey to locate his 5-year-old son.
“It’s telling that Senator Hester would describe an immersive work of narrative nonfiction — about a group of Palestinian kindergartners killed in a tragic school bus accident — as a defense of terrorism,” Mr. Thrall said.
“We’ve been struggling to figure out a way to invite knowledgeable professors and activists and researchers to talk with us,” said Shirin Saeidi, the head of the university’s Middle East Studies center.Melyssa St. Michael for The New York Times
Other speakers have also declined to visit Arkansas because of the pledge requirement, said Shirin Saeidi, the head of a Middle East Studies center at the university who had invited Mr. Thrall.
“We’ve been struggling to figure out a way to invite knowledgeable professors and activists and researchers to talk with us,” Dr. Saeidi said.
She said she had been trying, unsuccessfully, to get clarity from administrators about whether the law applied to university speakers, and whether signing the pledge could be avoided if the contracts were under $1,000.
For Professor Gordon, news of his panel’s cancellation came the morning of the event. The dean of the Honors College, Lynda L. Coon, had called to tell him that the event was being postponed, he said.
The cancellation occurred after conservatives inside and outside the university complained that the panel was antisemitic and would lead to indoctrination.
Professor Gordon said he wanted to address the historical context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the motivations for the Oct. 7 attack and the Israeli response.
He rejected the idea that his panel was antisemitic.
“Antisemitism is to hate Jews because they’re Jews,” said Professor Gordon, who is Jewish. “Just like we can say that the Trump administration was a disaster, we can say the Netanyahu administration is a disaster. It’s not anti-American. It’s not antisemitic.”
A spokeswoman for the Honors College said Dr. Coon was unavailable for an interview but pointed to a statement that said increased interest in the panel had led to a need to accommodate “a larger audience and panel” in the spring.
At the university, the issue has taken a toll on some students, who say they don’t dare stage the types of pro-Palestinian protests seen on other campuses. Private group chats among Muslim and pro-Palestinian students are on fire, but they are reluctant to speak publicly, said one student, an officer of the Muslim Student Association who requested that his name not be used for fear of public backlash.
“The boundaries are so messy of what is allowable and what is not,” he said, citing the state law and recent panel cancellation. “There’s kind of an overlying fear of saying something you’re not allowed to say and getting reprimanded for that.”
In 2018, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against the Arkansas anti-boycott law on behalf of The Arkansas Times, a newsmagazine based in Little Rock, Ark.
For years, the University of Arkansas’s Pulaski Technical College had published ads in the newsmagazine. But told that he would have to sign the pledge to continue the relationship, the publisher, Alan Leveritt, said that he balked. He had no intention of boycotting Israel but still refused to sign the pledge, he said, because the government should not dictate his political opinions.
“I’m a taxpayer,” he said. “My family’s been in Arkansas for God knows how many generations. Yet I can’t do business with my own state government unless I kowtow to a foreign government.”
Not signing the pledge was a difficult decision for Mr. Leveritt. The Arkansas Times, a free publication, was heavily dependent on advertising, especially from the state.
But a Federal District Court upheld the Arkansas law. And the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit — the only federal appellate court to weigh in on any of the anti-boycott laws — upheld the ruling, saying that the ban regulated non-expressive commercial activity and did not violate the First Amendment.
The U.S. Supreme Court let the appeals court ruling stand.
Vimal Patel is a higher education reporter for The Times, focusing on speech and campus culture. He was previously a reporter for The Chronicle of Higher Education.More about Vimal Patel
A version of this article appears in print on Nov. 24, 2023, Section A, Page 15 of the New York edition with the headline: Academic Debate on Palestinians Goes Quiet Under Arkansas Law. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe
