The Free Speech Victimhood Paradox
Free speech is the most important component of democracy and an unalienable right here in the United States. Though, freedom of speech does not equate to freedom of consequence.
Throughout the anti-Israel crowd, there’s this fervent and manipulative victimhood complex about “free speech” and “censorship, as commentators with massive platforms bemoan that their speech rights are under attack the second anyone criticizes them, all while their viewership and influence continue to grow.
For example, commentators such as Tucker Carlson, have stated “Criticising the behaviour of a foreign government is a hate crime and can get you censored in your own country”.
This assertion has risen even past political commentary, into mainstream political campaigns. James Fishback, a GOP candidate for governor in Florida, has made similar claims, such as opining, “It’s against the law to criticize Israel… You could literally be punished and expelled from your taxpayer-funded university… and that is… unconstitutional. Totally un-American.” It’s clear that this idea is gaining in popularity amongst the political world, but is it true?
Fishback and Carlson both suggest that criticism of Israel is routinely treated as antisemitism, and therefore punishable by law, while also carrying severe professional, educational, and even familial consequences that appear increasingly detached from observable reality.
At the beginning of the year, Carlson’s network posted the following sentences: “It feels like every post on social media is about Israel. But this is not Israel. This is America, and the obsession over a foreign country is not healthy at all. It’s sick, really. But there is a way to fix it”.
Since the beginning of 2026, Tucker has released 54 episodes of his podcast, with 21 of those episodes focused on Israel and their “control” over the US government. It seems ironic that the man who recently reminded the world that this is “America,” and that “obsession over a foreign country is unhealthy,” has centered Israel in roughly 40% of his content this year, including episodes predating the Iran war he claims Prime Minister Netanyahu dragged the United States into.
Has this fervent criticism of Israel caused problems for Tucker and his career?
Carlson’s show is ranked as the 2nd most popular news show in the United States, per Spotify. In the last 30 days, Carlson’s YouTube channel has received 73 million views, while his network’s clip channel has received 42 million views.
Tucker’s show is heavily platformed across multiple outlets, including his website, X, Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, and more. Despite his sustained criticism of Israel, his media career has only expanded since his Fox departure, with increased audience reach and influence.
Despite the fallibility of Carlson’s claims, his positions are being echoed on the main political stage, as previously mentioned with GOP Florida governor candidate James Fishback. While Fishback has insisted one can be arrested for calling Netanyahu a war criminal, or opining that Israel is committing genocide, there is not one instance where that has taken place in Florida.
What Fishback is referring to is Florida statute 1015, which adopts the International Holocaust Remembrance Association’s (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. Clearly in the text of this definition, in line 4, is as follows: “The term ‘antisemitism’ does not include criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country.”
Standards that are referred to as antisemitic include, “applying double standards to Israel not expected of any other democratic nation, holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the State of Israel, and comparing contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis”.
While it is one’s free speech right to challenge or criticize the terminology in the IHRA definition, conflating it, and making it a core component of a political campaign is benevolently disingenuous.
Fishback, who is polling at 4% in the Republican primary, has been on a campus tour throughout Florida, rilling up young voters with energetic rallies, while preemptively victimizing himself and anyone else who dares criticize the Israeli government.
While Fishback is polling poorly, his rhetoric, popularized even more after his appearance on Carlson’s show, is becoming more mainstream, especially amongst college students.
This can be seen across the political aisle on college campuses, especially at the University of Missouri, where I am wrapping up my sophomore year.
At MU, the Students for Justice in Palestine organization (SJP) was initially prevented by the university’s administration from participating in the school’s annual homecoming parade due to their planned anti-Israel messaging that included accusations of Israel levying a genocide in the Gaza Strip.
After backing from the unindicted Hamas co-conspirator, CAIR, the student group sued, and a federal judge ruled that the group’s exclusion from the parade violated their First Amendment rights, ordering the university to allow their participation.
This incident perfectly encapsulates the manipulative victimhood paradox, as MU’s SJP chapter faced institutional pushback for their vile messaging, yet managed to successfully leverage the legal system and gain national media attention.
The boisterous voices that warn that criticism of Israel will destroy one’s life, career, and family are thriving largely because they criticize Israel. Their warnings of marginalization are hollow statements, as their platforms, audiences, and influence continue to expand.
This exaggerated, “sound the alarm” rhetoric is misleading college students into thinking that legitimate policy debate is illegal or dangerous, which leads to fostering resentment and even antisemitic attitudes under the guise of censorship. The real threat isn’t censorship or cancellation, instead the dishonest use of “free speech martyr” rhetoric to avoid accountability for bad arguments.
