On November 19, 2025, NPR interviewed “Palestinian comedian” Mo Amer in conjunction with his Netflix special Wild World. The host, Leila Fadel, claims that the special “explores free speech and the absurdities American Arabs and Muslims face while navigating life in the U.S.”
I have not seen the special.
What I find interesting and disturbing is the way the issue of free speech is framed in the interview. Amer is talking about negative reactions people have to something someone says, that is, about “being shunned or canceled over something you say.” It is conceivable that this could be discrimination. But Amer and NPR would have us believe that this is somehow a violation of free speech.
In fact, free speech is a basic right that is enshrined in the Constitution’s First Amendment. Its meaning and application are often matters of debate, but there is absolutely no reason to think that “being shunned or canceled” would violate free speech. If Amer were arrested or imprisoned for something he said, that could violate free speech, though not necessarily. If his words posed an immanent threat to someone’s person or defamed someone’s character, they would not be protected. Our Constitution protects speech that criticizes the government or its policies. As it happens, there are relatively few countries that allow their populations to criticize their governments. Hamas-controlled Gaza is certainly not one of them, nor is the PA-controlled “West Bank.” In fact, there is not a single Arab country that has free speech, nor could anyone feel entirely safe in any Muslim country after criticizing the government. Basic human rights just do not extend that far—as we see tragically in Iran after the government shot down thousands of demonstrators. Similarly, critics of Hamas are not “shunned or canceled”—they’re arrested, tortured, and sometimes murdered. Amer’s suggestion that he could speak freely in Saudi Arabia is simply ridiculous—unless he means that what he says about Israel will not be shunned there.
Why would anyone think that being shunned is a violation of free speech? The point of free speech is that you can say what you want (again, within limits). It is not that I or anyone else needs to listen to you—much less to agree. Amer seems to feel free only when he can say what he believes to people who agree with him. “Free” for him means “free from criticism.” Ridiculous! One point of guaranteeing free speech in a society is to foster debate. Speech is free only when others can criticize it. Free speech promotes dialogue and discussion that help us sort out which beliefs are true and the best policies to follow.
Can people at NPR and Netflix possibly be so confused about the meaning of free speech? Could audiences really imagine that Americans lack free speech because what they say is criticized? Are audiences drawing the conclusion that is apparently intended, namely, that it is rather people in Saudi Arabia, Gaza, and Lebanon who have real free speech because they can criticize Israel without encountering any opposition? It seems that it is only those who state the “facts” as Amer and Fadel see them who are entitled to speak freely.
As it happens, there are relatively few countries that allow their populations to criticize their governments. Hamas-controlled Gaza is certainly not one of them, nor is the PA-controlled “West Bank.”
There is another side of this perversion of free speech that is even more disturbing. It was widely reported that campus protests against Israel targeted Jewish students, threatening and intimidating them. Some students were trapped in campus buildings when police could not protect them. It was related to me that Jewish students at Hunter College were told by their university administration not to come to class because it would be too dangerous. Yet, university presidents and faculty have insisted that the protestors were exercising their right to free speech in peaceful demonstrations, and that their institutions must protect this right. Even when students broke into university buildings and harassed staff, administrators at Columbia and other institutions refused to press charges. Were they afraid that protesters would feel that they just were not free to express themselves in the U.S.? Or were they concerned that their foreign students could face deportation? Or was it that protestors and administrators thought they were indeed exercising their right to free speech because nearly everyone agreed with them? At the very least our universities should ensure that their students abide by the law. To fail to do so is not to promote free speech.
The human rights that we enjoy in the U.S. are precious and rare. To suggest that people concerned by Muslim support for Islamism are somehow suppressing free speech, as Amer and NPR do, is not just ridiculous. It betrays a complete misunderstanding of what free speech is. We cannot keep our rights if significant segments of the population do not understand or appreciate them. We need to ensure that new immigrants get instruction in American institutions. We need to teach civics classes in schools again. If even NPR and Netflix could be confused, there must be many, many more Americans who need to learn about America.
