Free speech: Censorship is preferable to conflict

In the past couple of weeks, controversy over serving Palestinian food has embroiled Conflict Kitchen. Some pro-Israeli groups say the takeout restaurant in Schenley Plaza displays advocacy via food wrappers for the Palestinian side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

This debate culminated last week when the restaurant closed down in response to a death threat. While death threats are never warranted, this incident clearly demonstrates why we need more censorship to ensure that all speech is politically correct and offends no one. If one group, or even one person, is sufficiently outraged, their hurt feelings outweigh any supposed positive benefits of open political discourse. 

Therefore, Conflict Kitchen should recognize that it is far more beneficial to promote peaceful censorship than free and dangerous discussion.

Why else would organizations such as B’nai Brith be so outraged? This group was so mad that it called for Heinz Endowments — who awarded Conflict Kitchen a $50,000 grant, in April 2013 — to commit “a public disavowal” of Conflict Kitchen. By giving Palestinians a voice, admittedly a small one that is limited to food wrappers, Conflict Kitchen committed an unfortunate crime. It’s appalling to include text on the wrapper “taken directly from interviews [Conflict Kitchen] conducted with Palestinians living in both Palestine and the United States.” If we allow people to say whatever they want without heavily editing and censoring them, where will this country end up? 

Conflict Kitchen not only allowed Palestinians to freely relate their experiences in their interviews, but some Palestinians also used this opportunity to criticize Israeli policy. Sure, in the United States, we tend to tolerate free speech, but the interviews technically didn’t take place in the United States, so they shouldn’t count. 

Besides, even if Palestinians have valid reasons to criticize Israel, there are far more important issues, like whether or not Palestine is technically a country in conflict with the United States.

Claiming the United States is in conflict with Palestine because it has donated nearly $121 billion over the years to Israel — mostly in military aid, according to a Congressional Research Service report — is ridiculous. Sure, Israel uses that money for military operations and/or self-defense, but just because the United States continues to give Israel aid and was one of the countries to vote against giving Palestine observer status in the United Nations doesn’t really mean we are in conflict with it. It simply means the United States isn’t Palestine’s biggest fan — something completely different.

That is all water under the bridge though, at least compared to the sin Conflict Kitchen has committed by not including an Israeli perspective to counter Palestinian statements. 

Jon Rubin, Co-director of Conflict Kitchen, said this is in part because Israelis, “have plenty of other formats to [tell their narrative].” 

But do they really? I don’t see any restaurants handing out pro-Israeli wrappers. And if you know anything about America, it’s the fact that we form all of our beliefs based off of food packaging. Heck, without McDonald’s constantly telling us that we’re “lovin’ it,” no one would ever buy their food. Some might say that in other forms of news media, especially television, there is a pro-Israeli bias, but that pales in comparison to the pro-Palestinian bias in the crucial medium of the food wrapper. Conflict Kitchen doesn’t even have the decency to pretend it’s “fair and balanced” like Fox News.

While free speech is very important, only the right type of free speech — that which is inoffensive to large groups — should be allowed. Censorship ensures  businesses promote the right type of speech and there is never any conflict. Since the Constitution prohibits the government from limiting speech, it is up to us as enlightened citizens to stamp out offensive speech. It doesn’t matter what group said speech is offensive to or why they feel that way, as long as some group finds it offensive. 

It is only then that we can ever be free of racism, sexism, ageism, homophobia, ableism, mentalism, sexism and every other ism. Conflict or censorship — it is your choice.

Eli Tallbert writes satire for The Pitt News, email him at ejt26@pitt.edu.