The alleged justification for this total ban on all Zionists -- that is, people who believe that Israel has a right to exist -- is to protect the safety and welfare of Palestinian students. This is patent nonsense. No students have been physically threatened by Zionists, and no student is entitled to be protected from ideas.

Those clubs are engaging in a combination of Stalinism and antisemitism: Stalinism in the sense that they allow no dissenting views from their "politically correct" doctrine of no Israel; antisemitism in the sense that among all the nations of the world which are involved in controversies -- Russia, Iran, China, Belarus, to name a few -- they have singled out for banning only the nation-state of the Jewish people.

Imagine if a university club were to exclude all speakers who support Black Lives Matter?

The University of California at Berkeley is a public institution. If it in any way supports these organizations -- financially or by allowing them to have offices on the campus -- then it is effectively the State of California that is enacting and enforcing these bans. This constitutes state action and is governed by the First Amendment. The question is which way the First Amendment cuts. Does it give the clubs the right to exclude all speakers who are Zionists? Or does it prohibit state actors from demanding that all speakers disavow Zionism as a condition to exercising their First Amendment right to speak? And what about the rights of their potential audience members to hear them? The answers may also implicate federal funding for the university.

Clubs and universities generally have a right to choose their speakers, but there is a vast difference between individually deciding who will speak and making a collective decision banning all people of a particular ideology, religion or race.... These clubs are effectively banning most Jews.

The ban is, sadly, also akin to a "loyalty oath" of the kind imposed by McCarthyites in the 1950s and opposed back then by both liberals and civil libertarians.

Universities have an educational and moral duty to foster dialogue and learning, not banning and censorship. Public universities have a constitutional obligation to prohibit religious and ethnic discrimination. Berkeley is failing both tests.

The question remains: is their failure protected or prohibited by the First Amendment?

Debate is hard. Especially to leftists like Obama or Ardern who have lost the ability to recognize that anyone can fundamentally, rather than procedurally, disagree with them in good faith.

Disinformation charges rapidly move from delegitimization to criminalization. World leaders like Ardern insist that we could solve problems if people didn't insist on disagreeing with us. Obama contends that a society can't function if we can't all agree on what's true. Someone has to decide that. And who better than the leaders who gather at world conferences?

The only way to protect free speech is through censorship. Censorship becomes freedom. And free speech is the ultimate censorship. Only by destroying free speech can we save it.

Disinformation is the ultimate ad hominem argument. It's become the first resort of echo chamber establishments that have lost the ability to debate because they don't understand how anyone can or should be allowed to think differently than they do. The obsession with fighting disinformation just takes the safe space university model nationally and internationally.

And in the perfect example of horseshoe theory, it brings together totalitarians from across the world who don't agree on anything except that different opinions are a threat to their regimes.

If the only legitimate kind of free speech is truthful, good or fair, that's just censorship with lipstick. Someone will have to decide what kind of speech needs to be censored and the invented class of experts put forward by leftists to fight disinformation will ensure that their speech will be protected and those of their political opponents will be suppressed.

Speech, like elections, is either free or it's not. The closing of political systems encompasses general principles and specific applications like the Bill of Rights. An international censorship coalition is growing. Its purpose is to ensure that the only debate to be allowed anymore will consist of world leaders reading from prepared speeches at the UN General Assembly before returning home to oversee countries where free speech and all freedoms have been eliminated.