ut it. It's because when I got cancelled, the bad guys, as I'll call them, they cast me in the role of the resistance. So I didn't plan it, but you know, every time I see a meme that uses my face and has some reference to why I got cancelled, I think to myself, wow, I actually became like Che Guevara. Yeah. At least my image. So I'm an image of the resistance. And it's the resistance against DEI and CRT and racism against white men, basically. So I never really minded getting cancelled. It was a pain in the ass, but in terms of how I felt about it, it just made me feel like I was part of the resistance. And then I felt that's kind of cool. It's kind of cool that people recognize me as an image of the resistance. So it's a very dangerous term because people want to be in it.

Now let's talk about those colleges. Now of course what Trump wants them to do is be less anti-Semitic and less DEI. And the colleges are pushing for free speech. Now what is the dividing line between free speech, which would be somebody saying something bad about Israel, versus hate speech, where maybe there's a risk somebody gets hurt.

So I've been listening to Glenn Greenwald on this because he's just so good at explaining his point of view. So I think Greenwald is, I don't want to try to capture his opinion because I might get it wrong, but the basic idea is he's real pro-free speech and that would include free speech about Israel. And so when he sees the colleges or if he sees the Trump administration trying to squash just the Israel talk but not squashing talk about other countries, then he says reasonably, why are we just picking out this one special group of people? And I have an answer for that.

So I asked Grok to define hate speech because hate speech is illegal and free speech is legal and that's the way it should be. Grok says hate speech is typically defined as expression that incites violence, discrimination or hostility against individuals or groups based on protected characteristics like race, religion, gender or sexuality. Then it says free speech includes a broad range of expressions and it could be offensive but it wouldn't activate anybody for any violence. So hate speech is only restricted if it incites imminent lawlessness. That's a Grok definition. And they say context matters. This is also Grok. A statement might be free speech in one setting, for example if you're just talking privately to a friend, but it might be considered hate speech if you did it in public. So that makes sense.

But let's take one example of something that's happened with the Democrats and see if you think this is just offensive or it's inspiring people to lawlessness. So this is Governor Pritzker, Democrat Governor JB Pritzker. And he said in a speech he was calling for mass demonstrations and urging people to quote rise up against Trump declaring that quote Republicans must not know a moment of peace. Is that free speech? Or did he target Republicans for activities that would seem lawless? Because if you don't allow me a moment of peace, as in I can't walk on the sidewalk without being accosted, that's hate speech to me, i