“To view the opposition as dangerous is to misunderstand the basic concepts of democracy. To oppress the opposition is to assault the very foundation of democracy.”

— Aung San Suu Kyi, “Letters from Burma”

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

— S.G. Tallentyre, “The Friends of Voltaire”

Two wars, one laced with religious and ethnic overtones.

A presidential campaign with one of the leading candidates facing criminal charges brought by the administration of his expected opponent.

The president’s son faces criminal charges, too, and Congress is investigating whether the son’s alleged misdeeds can be traced to the father.

Conspiracy theories. Climate change. Mass shootings. Social media.

Our global blood pressure is rising, and it’s bringing out the worst in us. Antisemitism is on the rise. Researchers have observed increased hate speech online. Political discourse remains as nasty as ever.

And, as always happens in times like this, political leaders have started to ponder a crackdown. Congress, for example, recently hauled in several university officials to ask them what they’re doing to stem a rise in hate speech on campuses nationwide.

“I am worried,” Eugene Volokh, a free speech expert and law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles, told Politico Magazine for a recent story. “I think to the extent that people do conclude, ‘Yes, this speech is beyond the pale, we have to suppress this kind of speech,’ and that it’s legitimate for the government to suppress this kind of speech … I think it would be very dangerous.”

Dangerous, indeed.

The government has no business deciding what speech should look like online or anywhere else.

That’s a power only you, the public, has to exercise.

And you, the public, have a duty to exercise that power.

The government has a role to play, refereeing the clear lines between protected speech and violence, protected speech and property damage or vandalism, protected speech and threats, protected speech and harassment. When ideas become actions, the government can and should step in to protect its people.

But the government — and that includes the governments of public universities or even public K-12 schools — doesn’t get to tell people what they can and can’t say, no matter how vile and reprehensible their statements might be.

The First Amendment forbids it.

The political pendulum swings unceasingly. If we allow today’s government to prohibit hate speech, tomorrow’s government may prohibit political speech, or religious speech, or scientific speech.

Always remember: If the government can do it to them, it can do it to you, so only give the government as much power as you’re willing to be crushed by.

Instead, it’s up to each of us to use the power of our speech to stand for the oppressed and the victims of hate, to oppose evil and demagoguery, to unite our brothers and sisters against racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia and the like.

If the peddlers of prejudice speak, we need to speak, too, even if — nay, especially if — that hate’s not directed at us or our people. As Ben Franklin said, “justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are.”

What should universities do to stop antisemitism on their campuses?

If someone draws a swastika on a dorm room door, that is harassment (and vandalism) and should be dealt with. If a student tells another student they’re going to kill him or her, that is a threat and the university should address it. If a student attacks another student, the attacking student should face punishment.

However, if a group of students rally in support of Hamas or a student posts an antisemitic screed online, the most powerful thing a university can do — and the only thing the university should do — is make room for voices of peace and understanding to speak louder than the hate.

Barring hateful speech from campus or punishing students who speak it does nothing to kill the ideas behind the speech. Quite the contrary. Such actions only push the ideas underground, where they fester like a deep boil and grow angry under what they view as the oppressive thumb of the government.

But if those hateful ideas are drowned out by voices of love, if we show those hateful thinkers they have no support, they will wither alone like a plant starved of water.

Hateful rhetoric should not be snuffed out by the heavy hand of the government.

Rather, it should die of hypoxia, losing oxygen as it’s crowded out by the rhetoric of peace, compassion, and understanding.

— The Alpena News