I remember after 911 it was pretty polarizing suggesting in public that the WTC attacks were blowback for American meddling overseas. Americans in general are pretty stupid and don't see a bigger, longer term picture.

So the Senate statement was against pro-Hamas student groups, not pro-Palestinian groups.

Hamas is a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization. Saying you support them is not illegal. Providing any sort of help like donations or actual aid is extremely so.

The greater trend they're trying to track here is cherry picking examples that are less clear cut than the student group chanting "we don't want two states! We want it all! From the river to the sea!"

But this is a uniquely American issue - almost every other country on the planet treats hate speech as illegal.

This is the best summary I could come up with:

But across the media and technology sectors, the arts, academia, and even generally nonpolitical industries like aviation and public relations, there has been an obvious effort to threaten, ostracize, and remove individuals from jobs based on their stated views on the subject.

In recent weeks, the editor-in-chief of the nonprofit scientific journal eLife, Michael Eisen, was forced to resign after sharing an article from The Onion satirizing public indifference to Palestinian civilian deaths; a top Hollywood talent agent, Maha Dakhil, was removed from the board of her company for suggesting on Instagram that a genocide was taking place in Gaza; and numerous journalists engaged in nonpolitical coverage, as well as ordinary corporate employees both in the United States and beyond, have faced reprimands and dismissals over their statements on the war.

Numerous writers have had their events canceled or been forced to shift venues based on past or present statements they have made deemed to be supportive of Palestinians or critical of Israel, including the political analyst and author Nathan Thrall and the novelist Viet Thanh Nguyen, who was scheduled to speak at 92NY.

A number of new websites have sprung up in recent weeks listing names of university students and corporate employees accused of issuing or endorsing sentiments deemed hostile to Israel, adding to an already rich cottage industry of such sites, including the notorious academic blacklist Canary Mission.

In the context of an emotionally charged, seven-decadeslong armed conflict, the effort to ruin people’s careers or livelihoods based on public comments on the matter have antagonized some free speech advocates.

Despite the growing climate of repression, legal advocates committed to defending free speech on the issue say that they will continue to promote the Palestinian perspective on the conflict with renewed urgency given current events in Gaza.

The original article contains 1,521 words, the summary contains 297 words. Saved 80%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!