Anti-Israel activists insist their protests in America are protected by the First Amendment. After calls for a “Jew hunt” in Amsterdam and subsequent orchestrated attacks on online organizing, it is time to assess when hateful rhetoric, such as “globalizing the Intifada,” moves from discourse protected from incitement to violence.

The slogan “globalize the Intifada” refers to two previous “Palestinian uprisings”, one in 1990 and the other in 2000-2005. These periods were marked by suicide bombings in Israel against buses and other public spaces, assassinations of civilians and other acts of violence. Since October 7, the slogan has been used on college campuses, including at Chapman University and UCI. It was shouted from the city halls of Irvine, Santa Ana and Anaheim, by demonstrators ironically calling for “cease-fire” resolutions. Slogans aimed at “globalizing the Intifada” have been used to target Israeli or Jewish businesses throughout the United States and even against the homes of prominent American Jews.

Last week in Amsterdam, supporters of the Israeli soccer team were identified as Jewish and then beaten in a premeditated attack. The Jews were taunted as they were chased and thrown into the river. The attackers cheered “Jews, Jews, IDF, IDF” and “Free Palestine” as they attacked visiting soccer fans in the city. After the Amsterdam attack, the Jews of Stockholm were beaten. This weekend in New York, a masked man tried to stop a little Jewish boy walking with his father in an Orthodox Jewish neighborhood.

In the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, the United States Supreme Court developed a legal standard to evaluate cases where free speech may be restricted because of incitement to imminent anarchy. The Supreme Court held that to limit such speech, it must 1) be intended to incite or produce imminent unlawful action and 2) be likely to incite or produce such action.

In this particular case, Ohio’s law restricting free speech was found to be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled that the KKK’s rights had been violated and that state law was too broad. The constitutional shortcoming of the Ohio law was that it did not assess whether hate speech would actually incite violence. The Supreme Court’s dominant test leans in favor of freedom of expression. It is designed to balance First Amendment protections with the need to protect public safety.

The Supreme Court favors a generous reading of the First Amendment. Free speech is a pillar of American democracy, even when the speech is ugly and hateful. But, as a society, we must not tolerate chants and slogans that constitute clear calls for violence.

Have the events of the past week shown that slogans such as “globalize the Intifada” meet the Brandenburg test? The bloody riots in Amsterdam and the spread of violence against Jews throughout the world have indeed shown that the slogans which have permeated society for a year are both aimed at inciting violence and are likely to incite a such violence. Chanting “globalize the Intifada” encourages indiscriminate acts of violence against Jews. Complete stop.

Congress and state lawmakers need not struggle to craft new laws to crack down on hate speech that has been found to incite violence. Such regulations would rightly be tested in court to ensure that such hypothetical legislation is not overbroad, thereby delaying any immediate implementation. Universities and municipalities already have constitutionally tested time, place and manner restrictions. Universities must stop pretending that hatred on their campuses, including upside-down red triangles marking Jewish targets, are “peaceful protests” and enforce their codes of conduct. City councils must stop allowing government forums to be co-opted to spread anti-Semitism. Municipalities can enforce their codes of decorum and limit the use of open meeting laws to matters within their jurisdiction.

An open society depends on the free exchange of ideas. It is often said that the antidote to bad speech is good speech. This may be true in a debate club, in a structured university classroom, or in the halls of Congress; but when crowds are given carte blanche to call for attacks and such chants actually produce violence, we need to think twice. We must not allow our society to move from one that promotes open discussion of thought and philosophical debate to one that promotes violence against a subsection of our population, in this case Jews.

Julie Marzouk is a lawyer, author and activist. She lives in Irvine.