Florida is in a novel situation: A national organization has allegedly committed a felony and explicitly said that its student chapters are part of the felony. What should happen in this case?
According to an October 24 letter to presidents of the State University System (SUS) of Florida penned by SUS Chancellor Ray Rodrigues, the organization called National Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) has broken Florida law by saying it is “part” of the terrorist actions in Israel, not merely supporting those actions through First Amendment activity. As a result, Rodrigues requires that student SJP chapters be derecognized.
The key document on which the chancellor relies is SJP’s Day of Resistance Toolkit. The toolkit refers to campus SJP organizations as “chapters” and states:
We as Palestinian students in exile are PART of this movement, not [merely] in solidarity with this movement. This is a moment of mobilization for all Palestinians. We must act as part of this movement. All of our efforts continue the work and resistance of Palestinians on the ground.
Accordingly, SJP has not just declared it is part of Hamas’s terrorist activities, but it has also implicated all SJP chapters at U.S. colleges.
The toolkit adds that “resistance comes in all forms—armed struggle, general strikes, and popular demonstrations. All of it is legitimate, and all of it is necessary.” While strikes may be protected by labor law and demonstrations are clearly protected by the First Amendment, “armed struggle” is clearly not.
Furthermore, SJP appears to have violated Florida law by providing material support to advance the terrorist activity. According to Florida law, it is illegal to provide “material support or resources for terrorism.” Prohibited activities include specialized advice and training rather than “general knowledge” that could be used by terrorists and non-terrorists alike.
This is where the analysis gets tricky. What does the toolkit give specialized advice and training about? The toolkit does condone and advise “armed struggle,” and it advises student SJP chapters also to promote Hamas’s terrorism as something good and necessary. Most of the document, however, advises students about how to engage in First Amendment activity—protesting, speaking, and distributing literature. And the advice is for student protesters regarding Hamas—the advice is not directed to Hamas.
It’s a stretch to say that the toolkit gives specialized advice on anything other than First Amendment activity, yet the advice is clearly not about general knowledge. The talking points are specifically for use as part of the terrorist movement. I could see a Florida court going either way on the merits.
But there are also due process issues. Even if SJP is committing a felony and telling its student chapters that they are part of the felony, are the student chapters really responsible? Do they have to specifically disavow SJP’s statement, or at least disaffiliate from SJP, in order to avoid being charged themselves?
From this perspective, the chancellor is helping the SJP chapters by giving their members an opportunity to avoid criminal charges. Yet the allegation has not been proven, just asserted. There appears to be no emergency in which SJP chapters in America are engaging in armed struggle, although violent or harassing incidents have already occurred on some campuses.
If one of the Florida SJP chapters sues to maintain campus recognition, I could see a Florida court going either way on the claim of free speech versus the explicit and material support of terrorism, but on the due process issues—the verdict is already in, and no notice or hearing is anticipated—the scales tip in favor of the student SJP chapters.
The right answer here is to withdraw the chancellor’s letter pending further study of these complex issues.
The rule of law is one thing that divides civilization from barbarians, and it even protects the barbarians.
Image: Adobe Stock
Constitutional or not, associating with a terrorist group places one in a special category and merely expressing support for a designated terrorist group is a Federal offense. Donating money is a form of speech, and people have been criminally charged with donating a couple hundred dollars to what they thought was a terrorist group.
All Rodrigues is doing is saying that the SJP chapters have to reorganize under another name — that they can continue doing everything they are doing, continue coordinating with the larger SJP, they just can’t call themselves SJP.
No.
The student groups ought not be allowed to reestablish themselves, and the students involved should be expelled. Those here on visas (which is most of them) ought to be deported as well.
“Treason” is defined as giving aid & comfort to the enemy. Hamas is the enemy, legally defined as such, QED supporting them is treason.
The “Constitutional or not …. [this speech I don’t like is a] special category” argument: used by would-be censors everywhere. It’s exactly what folks use to try to argue that “hate speech [as they define it]” shouldn’t be protected.
Meanwhile, here in a country where the rule of law does indeed define civilization, the only true “special categories” are those which are NOT Constitutional (ie. obscenity, child pornography, defamatory speech, false advertising, true threats, and fighting words). And just creating some talking points doesn’t qualify…because expressing [verbal] support for a terrorist organization doesn’t qualify. Otherwise, the Feds could define anyone they don’t like as a terrorist organization and effectively circumvent the First Amendment.
As for your contention that because money is speech that all speech is money, that falls under the old adage: “all thumbs are fingers but not all fingers are thumbs.” In other words, all speech is not the same. Put another way: money is more than just speech … and speech is more than just money.
In any case, like it or not, accept it or not, these limits on government power re:speech are a GoodThing. Because while today people you agree with could be making the rules on what is and what is not acceptable speech …. tomorrow the other side could be voted into office and flip the script making you the terrorist/criminal/etc. And defending this freedom is most important when it is hard: when there’s a real war going on and when people are losing their lives.
So Adam is absolutely correct. The jury is still out on whether the SJP is breaking any laws and this should certainly need to be proven in a court of law for each and every chapter.