Thread by @MarkGoldfeder

Dear @KevinRobertsTX,
I share your dislike of cancel culture and respect for open dialogue. That’s why I hope you’ll use this moment to show real leadership — by acknowledging a blind spot too many still share and using your platform to help others see it clearly.
Let me help:

@KevinRobertsTX The Supreme Court has long protected even hateful speech from government punishment. But that protection is a shield against state coercion, not a command that private citizens or institutions must lend their platforms to every voice.

The same Constitution that forbids government censorship also safeguards our freedom of association, including the right to say, with conviction, not in our name.
Exercising that discretion isn’t censorship, it’s responsibility.

@KevinRobertsTX That distinction matters quite a bit when we are dealing with antisemitism. Historically, antisemitism never announces itself as such. It seeps in slowly, wrapped in the language of intellectual inquiry or political critique.

@KevinRobertsTX In 1930s Europe, the most dangerous ideas did not begin in the streets but in the lecture halls and salons of the educated elite, who insisted that Nazi racial theories deserved equal time.

@KevinRobertsTX In the Soviet era, antisemitism disguised itself as “anti-Zionism.” Today, it hides behind appeals to “anti-colonialism,” “anti-globalism,” or “just asking questions.”

@KevinRobertsTX Antisemitism, as Rabbi Jonathan Sacks once explained, is a mutating virus. But there are some consistent elements:
Each time, it borrows the language of reason to make hatred sound respectable, and each time it relies on decent people mistaking tolerance for virtue.

@KevinRobertsTX It is worthwhile and good to debate bad ideas when the purpose is to expose them. Not so when the agenda is to uncritically platform or legitimize them under some distorted notion of free speech, that confuses protection from censorship with exemption from criticism.

@KevinRobertsTX That is how normalization works. It’s not about shouting; it’s about framing. It recasts prejudice as perspective and extremism as courage. It persuades good institutions that moral clarity is somehow a partisan act, and blurs the line between taking a stand and taking a side.

@KevinRobertsTX I don’t assume malice on your part. It’s entirely possible that you and others at Heritage underestimated how adaptive antisemitism can be, or even failed to recognize some of the tropes and narratives that carry it.

@KevinRobertsTX That’s understandable, and precisely why this could become a defining moment of leadership. Heritage could show that defending speech does not mean platforming hate, and that moral clarity need not come at the expense of intellectual openness.

@KevinRobertsTX If you’re open to it, I’d welcome a real conversation about how antisemitism manifests today, how to recognize it before it metastasizes, and how to ensure that institutions devoted to liberty don’t inadvertently shield those who despise it.

@KevinRobertsTX From one man of faith to another, let's have a good faith discussion.

Just let me know what time :)