This video is from a while back and I included in my weekly notes, but it was an interesting enough example of the kind of person that Glenn Greenwald is willing to interview---even though there's not a lot of overlap between Glenn's principles and whatever passes for Max Abrahms's principles. The guy is pretty popular in some circles---he writes for the Atlantic, surprise, surprise---so it's good to hear what he's got to say instead of just dismissing it out of hand. <media href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nnZwaDRf8Y" src="https://www.youtube.com/v/9nnZwaDRf8Y" source="YouTube" width="560px" author="Glenn Greenwald" caption="Glenn Greenwald & Max Abrahms Debate Israel-Gaza, Free Speech, & More"> I think this is pretty representative of the kind of things he just machine-guns at whoever happens to be listening. At one point he says <bq>It's hard for me to remember a case where China actually attacked the US homeland ... in large numbers. I don't think it's crazy at all to think that Al-Qaeda would do so. In fact ... </bq> Yeah, it's hard for me to remember that too. I pay pretty close attention, so I'm almost certain I would have heard had <iq>China actually attacked the US homeland</iq>. What does that have to do with anything? Silo thinking and silo media is so terrible for everyone. Poor Max hasn't had anyone to call him on his bullshit, so he ends up talking more and more and never notices that he's not only not always right, but he's <i>underinformed</i> about a lot of things that he thinks he's mastered. Basically, Max Abrahms is terrible. Kudos to Glenn to give him enough hope to hang himself. The guy wants people not to be able to wave flags of terrorist organizations in the U.S. That is not a thing that we can do. If they want to wave those flags, then they can wave those flags. Hell, there are a ton of confederate flags in the U.S. There are confederate flags in <i>Switzerland</i>. But Abrahms thinks that specifically Arabic/Muslim organizations represent the worst terrorism that could possibly exist and they should be <iq>punished</iq> and <iq>degraded</iq>. (Yes, these are the words he uses.) Abrahms said that calls to violence should be investigated. Greenwald granted him that theoretical, but then concluded that not just students should have their freedom of speech restricted, but then also people like Nikki Haley, who's calling for the flattening of Gaza and Iran. The dude could literally not answer that question---you could see it not computing at all---but instead started describing the so-called violent protests on U.S. campuses in excruciating detail. That's his hobby horse. Glenn wasn't going to knock him off of it so easily. Abrahms is interested in restricting the speech of those with absolutely the least power. You would think that someone who expresses himself so often about Palestine/Israel issues could pronounce Intifada correctly (he kept saying Antifada). Glenn pulled on his leash, telling Abrahms that nearly everyone else that Glenn has talked to, including many pro-Israel advocates, are more offended that the antisemitic narrative in the U.S. is wildly exaggerated. For example, the ADL considers any pro-Palestinian protest to be at least one, if not multiple, anti-semitic attack. This is a pretty naked attempt to generate "proof" that anti-semitic attacks are <i>increasing exponentially.</i> Abrahms enthusiastically confirms that this is <i>his very own hobby horse too</i>. THIS IS HAPPENING. He doesn't listen at all to what Glenn said, or give him the respect of refuting it. What is Glenn talking about? Who are all of these other fools to whom Glenn has spoken? Are they perhaps self-hating Jews? Traitors? When Glenn asked him what he proposes to do to hinder these supposed attacks, Abrahms again doesn't answer the question. I don't think that Abrahms is used to any pushback whatsoever. That's not part of his talking points. He probably didn't feel comfortable saying that he thinks that all of the protesters should just be thrown out of college and probably society. At <b>21:45</b>, Glenn says wraps things up with an actual explanation of free speech as it applies to this situation, <bq>The case went to the Supreme Court the Supreme Court, which overturned the conviction and said that advocating violence is clearly within the realm of protected speech. Which means that you're allowed to say 'flatten Gaza,' 'erase Gaza,' 'remove Gaza from the map,' 'I think all Palestinians should be killed,' 'there are no innocent Palestinians.' There's a huge number this week of Israeli officials and journalists who have said 'there's no such thing as an innocent Palestinian.' That's protected speech. You can go on campus and say that. You can say it in front of Palestinians and it's protected speech. To go and say 'I think the Israeli government and their occupation of the West Bank and the blockade of Gaza has become so barbaric and inhumane over decades that I think on the part of Palestinians is justified in order to resist it,' those are both to me clearly within the realm of free speech. I would never send the FBI or law enforcement after students on campuses for saying these things.</bq>