The BDS movement, purporting to be anti-Zionist and pro-Palestinian, has been a popular fixture on campus for a while, calling for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions of Israel. I’m no fan of the movement, as I’ve made clear in the past. But so what?

[On April 29th], a Massachusetts court heard initial arguments in a lawsuit that seeks to compel the University of Massachusetts at Amherst to cancel an upcoming panel discussion concerning “the increasingly vitriolic debate over U.S. support for Israel.” The lawsuit is the latest example of an attempt to use the State Department’s definition of anti-Semitism — and confusion over whether it has been adopted by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights — as a legal argument for campus censorship.

While the court has not yet ruled, one lawyer in attendance reported that the judge was “unimpressed with the bid to censor the event.”

The school put together a panel of three “bright lights” of the BDS movement, Women’s March grifter Linda Sarsour, Roger Waters (yes, that Roger Waters) and angry academic Mark Lamont Hill. It’s not a panel that would offer much by way of substance, but then, very few do, and very few are intended to do more than preach to their choirs and get their hallelujahs in return.

If there are people on the campus of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst who want to sit in a room with them, whether to consider their thoughts or cheer their heroes, that’s their right. It’s the right of the three to speak. It’s the right of the audience to listen. It’s the right of a college to put on a panel of BDS cheerleaders.

What is not a right is to go to court to seek an order cancelling the panel, silencing the speakers, depriving the audience of the opportunity to hear what they have to say, no matter how horrible they perceive their words and ideas. And the introduction in the complaint leaves little to the imagination.

Anti-Semitisim is a deadly hatred.

Not exactly a well-written sentence or a cogent thought, but then, what else is new?  The argument proffered by BDS supporters is that anti-Zionism isn’t anti-Semitism, which is why they want to destroy Israel and drive it into the sea. It’s a facially nonsensical argument, but has support among many Jewish academics, conclusively disproving the theses that Jews are inherently smart and higher education degrees reflect intelligence. And yet, even dolts get to speak, even when what they have to say is anti-Semitic.

What distinguishes this effort isn’t that what the panel has to say isn’t offensive. While that can generally be said about pretty much everything on campus these days, at least to someone, the offensiveness here isn’t hard to pinpoint. Destroy Israel and drive Jews into the sea is about as clear as it gets.

But this time, it’s not a matter of students (or others) protesting BDS or the individuals chosen to be on the panel. It’s that the people opposing this panel being given the opportunity to speak on campus have gone to court to stop it. This they cannot do.

The lawsuit wishes away obvious First Amendment problems. First and foremost, a public university that makes space available to the general public cannot limit access to those resources on the basis of the speakers’ views….

Second, as the response, filed today, correctly observes, an injunction against speech on a university campus would amount to a prior restraint, one of the most egregious forms of censorship….

Third, it is highly doubtful that the State Department’s definition has legal force, precluding a court from ruling that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims (a prerequisite to obtaining a preliminary injunction), at least on this basis….

It’s not that the opponents of this panel have no means by which to register their outrage and disapproval. Protest the panel outside the room where it’s being held, so that anyone entering (unmolested by the protesters, bike locks notwithstanding) will be made aware of the fact that this panel might not reflect the tolerance and love its unduly passionate supporters would claim.

What about a panel of other speakers, people who could present the alternative mode of thought in order to demonstrate the wrongfulness of the panel’s anti-Semitic views? Why not use the marketplace of ideas to sell a better, more rational, less hateful approach? Perhaps even a debate, sponsored by people of good will to challenge the propriety of the BDS supporters?

But court? Not only is that the wrong way to win the point, but it’s contrary to the same rights that opponents of BDS need to counter anti-Semitism.

FIRE takes no position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or movements arising therefrom, such as BDS, beyond pointing out that academic boycotts, or censorship of political opponents or supporters of BDS, might endanger academic or expressive freedom. This meritless lawsuit would have the university violate the First Amendment to censor BDS proponents — the very academic censorship that underlies the university’s opposition to academic boycotts of Israel.

Adam Steinbaugh calls the suit “meritless.” I would go a step further and call it frivolous, such that sanctions would be appropriate for bringing this action that is so utterly devoid of merit, so contrary to the First Amendment, that there is no arguable basis upon which it could, or should prevail.

Challenging anti-Semitism is as valid as any other attack on ideas that are offensive. You don’t have to agree with it, or with any idea for that matter. Indeed, the propounding of ideas that one finds hateful is what gives rise to ideas that are better, smarter, less hateful, as well as ideas like BDS which mask religious hate of its own. When all of them are on the table, we get to pick and choose, to make our case, to argue the merits of all ideas without being silenced.

There are people who believe that the current administration in israel has treated Palestinians horribly. It’s a fair point of view, just as we can criticize our own government for its actions while still being Americans and loving our nation. That’s not what BDS does, but that’s what some of its supporters claim and hide behind.

So let them air out their positions and let their opponents rip it to shreds for its anti-Semitism. But keep the courts out of it. This was a ridiculous attempt to censor speech on campus, and should be dealt with harshly.