Unfortunately, it appears a growing percentage of Americans are becoming more amendable to allowing the state to decide what ideas people can and cannot express.

The numbers are quite disturbing:

A recent poll, taken by Project Home Fire and InnovateMR, polled 2,008 registered voters from August 25 to September 11. Their findings should send a chill down the spine of every American voter. Especially for Republicans, it is a stark warning sign, that this is what they are up against. Among those voters who, again incredibly, plan on voting for President Joe Biden in 2024, 47 percent say that “the government should regulate or restrict the expression of views considered discriminatory or offensive." Ironically, 35 percent who say they plan on voting for Donald Trump say the government should be involved in speech regulation.

Not only is the true meaning of the First Amendment clearly lost on a large number of Americans, but it seems they have skipped the entire Bill of Rights as well. Roughly one-third of those Biden voters also believe that, in true liberal fashion, “it is necessary to limit certain rights, like freedom of speech, to protect the feelings and safety of marginalized groups." It's all about how you "feel." In still more irony, 25 percent of Trump voters agreed with this sentiment. Who are these "Trump voters" anyway?

Here's an example: Florida’s “strongest antisemitism agenda in America,” as outlined by Florida state Rep. Randy Fine. The legislation is ostensibly intended to combat anti-Jewish bigotry in public universities by expelling students and faculty who, in the lawmaker’s words, “propagated, excused, or encourage this genocide,” referring to Hamas’ surprise attack on Israel that occurred on October 7.

“Any student organization that has attempted to ‘justify the killing of Jews’ which is chartered by any state college or university, must be expelled immediately, and any public funds be cut off,” Fine stated.

“Any student participating in the rallies of these organizations must be treated like a student screaming the n-word and calling for Black students to be lynched. They would be expelled.”

Surely government-run schools should not be engaging in, or allowing, discriminatory behavior. But what happens when the definition of hate becomes a subjective matter decided by state institutions?

Fine calls for the expulsion of people who “justified the killing of Jews.” The question is: Who gets to decide what constitutes advocating for the murders of Jewish folks? The vast majority of pro-Palestinian protesters are not out there blatantly shouting “Kill the Jews,” are they? Yet, most of these individuals clearly side with the Palestinians against Israel. Right or wrong, they are vocal critics of the Israeli government and how it has handled the situation with the Palestinians. Is expressing their contempt for this government the same as advocating for the killing of Jews?

Many would say “no.” But there are plenty who might consider such arguments as calling for violence against Jewish people living in Israel and elsewhere, even if those making the remarks do not wish to see Israelis become victims of terrorist attacks.

Universities are designed to be battlegrounds for ideas: some revolutionary, some evolutionary, some unsavory, and even more, some that are incredibly stupid. The notion is that people, including college students, should be empowered to freely air out these ideas in public discourse without the government punishing them for it.

The proposed bill notes that criticism of Israel’s government is similar to that of other governments, and would not be considered antisemitic. Yet, who gets to decide what is “similar” and what crosses the line into antisemitic hate speech? As much as we would like to think the distinction is obvious, the past decade has shown this is not true. We have seen the left label people as xenophobic simply because they want better border protections and a healthier immigration system, haven’t we?

The problem with laws such as this is that the vagueness of the language leaves far too much up to subjective perceptions, which means they can, and will, be abused by those who have no problem using the state to force their will on others. There is no silver bullet to address issues surrounding “hate speech” and antisemitism. But, as proponents of free speech say: The way to combat bad speech is with more good speech.