I love reading and engaging with your materials; however, I have an issue with this particular one. Firstly, let's address the headline. Claiming that one can't learn ANYTHING from a few seconds of listening is misleading. Such a statement can make you appear foolish, shallow, and disconnected from the way people consume news today, often leading to misinformation. The truth is, many individuals do form their opinions based on heavily edited snippets that fit a particular narrative. This approach is incredibly dangerous!

If I had come across your publication for the first time and encountered such a headline, I would have been reluctant to return. It's crucial to understand how people consume news and how snippets can shape their perspectives. Misrepresenting this reality can create a disconnect between your publication and its readers.

Secondly on to the topic of laws and freedom of speech, I firmly believe that no law should restrict freedom of speech, even hate speech. The challenge lies in determining who should act as the arbitrator, deciding what is hateful or racist and what is not. Introducing laws that limit any kind of speech sets us on a treacherous path.

As a resident of the United States, I am deeply concerned about the current climate here. In certain places, expressing objective truths, such as acknowledging that a boy is a boy and a girl is a girl, can now be considered racist. This chilling effect on free speech is alarming. In our neighboring country, Canada, individuals can face severe consequences, including fines and jail time, for making similar statements. It is imperative that we carefully consider the implications before endorsing any form of speech limitation.

Before advocating for restrictions on speech, I urge you to thoroughly contemplate and deeply ponder the consequences of such actions. The changing landscape of free speech demands careful examination, as statements of objective truths can sometimes be misconstrued. Let's ensure we think critically and thoroughly before
venturing down this dangerous path.

"Unless a speech explicitly incites physical harm towards others, it should be allowed. The collective judgment of the people should serve as the arbitrator in determining what is considered hateful and what is not. While we may have differing opinions on this matter, it is crucial that we never impose limitations on speech itself. Open dialogue allows for the free exchange of ideas, even those we may strongly disagree with, like the one displayed here by Merav Michaely