I oppose the death penalty, but on occasion have said (and perhaps written) that I am tempted to relax my opposition for those who deliberately spread lies (or bomb babies). This is my cherished right in the U.S. where we enjoy (still to some extent) our freedom to say whatever we want. I strongly oppose antisemitic statements as well as false claims that condemning acts of the Israeli government is antisemitic. But I defend the right of people to says such things (but would never invite them to my home). It is also my right to condemn their rudeness.
The demonstrations of Jewish (Israeli) and Arab (Palestinian) students condemning Hamas’ Oct 7 attack on Israel and Israel’s subsequent attack on Gaza (and increased violence against Palestinians in the West Bank) are understandably intense. To be clear, violence from demonstrators toward anyone (such as blocking access to class) is not protected by our First Amendment right to free speech and would be certainly condemned by me. But shouting death to the Palestinians or to the Jews without actual threats of violence is protected. The First Amendment is not needed to protect speech we agree with or like but speech we disagree with and/or are offended by. The benefits of such freedom in our society are huge but seem to need renewed support.
I am particularly annoyed by deliberate distortions of the meaning of chants like “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” I share that aspiration. Indeed, everyone from the river to the sea should be free. Representative Rashida Tlaib, Democrat of Michigan, was censured by House lawmakers for saying it.
Unfortunately, disapproval and disagreement have morphed into inappropriate sanctions:
“The brother of a British-Israeli man who had been killed during Hamas’ attack on 7 October… told the BBC that he found the marches in the UK for Gaza upsetting and intimidating. Chants like ‘From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’ were, he observed, evidence of deep-rooted and growing antisemitism in British society.
“The problem is not just that many British Jews assume the UK has an antisemitism problem based on a highly dubious interpretation of the chant’s meaning. It is that establishment media organisations are echoing that misunderstanding and treating it as more newsworthy than Israel killing Palestinian babies, with the UK government’s blessing. It is just one illustration of a pattern of reporting by western media outlets skewing their news priorities in ways that reveal a racist hierarchy of concern. Jewish fears are of greater import than actual Palestinian deaths, even babies’ deaths.
“The hypocrisy is especially hard to stomach, given a central Israeli justification for its subsequent genocidal rampage through Gaza. Israel promoted the claim that Hamas had beheaded 40 Israeli babies on 7 October – a story that was widely reported as fact, even though no evidence was ever produced for it.” “Israel-Palestine war: Gaza slogan bigger news than murder of babies”
New York Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik’s attack on the President of MIT, Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania for defending free (if repugnant) speech was particularly disgusting and alarming. The President of the U of Penn, Liz Magill, was evening forced to resign. While there may be some grey areas between shouting that all Arabs or all Jews (or Trumpeters) should die and actually threatening their lives, the attacks we have been seeing on the freedom to say nasty things is dangerous to a valued American institution. So is the increasing loss of civility (good manners). To preserve (or reestablish) the society we cherish, we need to use our freedom to speak to defend both speech and manners.
Warren's space 
The first amendment protections of freedom of speech, the press, etc., are protections from government— Congress may pass no law abridging . . .
But certainly, private institutions may specify and delimit what spoken or written words are permissible on its property and relating to its activities.
A private institution of higher learning may establish and enforce a student and faculty code of conduct concerning dress, conduct and modes or forms of speech. These may be wider or narrower, and may be expected to be followed by those attending or employed by that private institution of higher learning.
Those objecting to or uncomfortable with these codes and standards of conduct are free not to attend or be employed by that private institution of higher learning.
So, for members of Congress to challenge such an institution of higher learning on its respect for or enforcement of the First Amendment is misplaced and inappropriate.
However, this is different than calling out such an institution of higher learning concerning its inconsistency and hypocrisy in enforcing and respecting its own code of conduct.
This, I think, is part of the outrage and frustration with the stance taken by the institutions pointed to at that Congressional hearing. It is a punishable verbal “micro-aggression” to use words that are said to be “hurtful” about blacks, women or gays, for instance, but it depends on “context” to call for the killing of Jews on that campus. That is what seems so outrageous and objectionable in the eyes of many, I would suggest.
If Congress were to attempt to impose a defined First Amendment standard on such institutions of higher learning since they accept government (taxpayer) dollars in one form or another, then that institution of higher learning may return and refuse any future government dollars to more fully reinforce its status as a private institution.
This is what Hillsdale College in Michigan did in the 1970s when the federal government tried to impose affirmative action rules on that private institution of higher learning on the rationale that even one dollar of government money served as a basis for government standard-setting on that institution.
Part of the problem, I would suggest, is that these institutions want to enforce whatever rules they want, and however erratically and inconsistently as they politically and ideologically decide to do, while taxpayers disagreeing with their conduct are forced to foot the bill.
While, on the other want, those objecting to the politics and ideology at many of these colleges and universities want to use the power of government to impose their alternative standards and codes on those institutions.
In my view, this clearly shows the importance of a complete separation of government and schooling at all levels.
Agreed. The U of Chicago has always had it right and understands and respects the value of free speech
Nazi anti-Jewish propaganda in 1933 lead to the death camps in 1942.
So you’re okay with me saying death to all Blacks. And gays.
You weren’t making such posts when these institutions were punishing students for far less.
You’re an avowed anti-semite. So I’m happy to suspend my aversion to the death penalty in your case.
I defend your freedom to say those things and mine to condemn you for such bigotry. I am most certainly not anti-semitic.
Here is a very interesting exploration of the meaning of From the River to the Sea:https://mondoweiss.net/2023/11/on-the-history-meaning-and-power-of-from-the-river-to-the-sea/
Reason Foundation makes a case that U Penn president Liz Magill was correct to say that calling for genocide only violated U. Penn policies when it crosses into conduct (e.g. harassment) but wrong to capitulate the next day and say that said speech did violate those policies.
https://reason.com/2023/12/11/after-resisting-demands-to-punish-hate-speech-penns-president-capitulated-it-did-not-save-her-job/
Not discussed was whether students did indeed call for genocide of Jews. Stefanik inferred that chanting “intifada” is tantamount to advocating genocide, but that is her own interpretation. And a call for Palestinians to engage in revolution is not necessarily outside of the constitutional protection of free speech, as is shouting “fire” in a crowed theater.
As noted in one of the comments, the problem is rather that Harvard and Penn have not extended freedom of speech to politically incorrect views on the right, which is why they are ranked last and next to last on the protection of free speech.