One of the shared assertions in almost any discussion about pluralism and freedom of expression can be found in a quote commonly attributed to Voltaire: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” It is a powerful statement of mythic proportions, and one of the most sacred principles of liberalism. But there is a problem. While the line is attributed to Voltaire, one cannot find it in his writings, and for a good reason. It was invented over a century after his death by Evelyn Beatrice Hall, who wrote "The Friends of Voltaire." And it's clearly a pompous and empty turn of phrase. I am highly doubtful whether I would be willing to die for my own views, so it stands to reason that I would be even more reluctant to die for someone else’s. Furthermore, would I be willing to die for the right of someone like a neo-Nazi to express his opinions? Of course not.

A democratic state should and can tolerate a divergence of opinions, including the most extreme opinions, and even the most infuriating ones. It's permissible to spread poison and lies or unctuous post-Zionist ideas, and yes, even to call openly for the eradication of the State of Israel as a Jewish state. My basic position is that I support absolute freedom of expression, except in cases of direct incitement to murder. I also adhere to the US Supreme Court ruling (by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. in 1919) that freedom of speech does not include the right to falsely shout "fire" in a crowded theater. Since war is a kind of crowded theater, with everyone shooting at everyone else, it seems to me that the threshold shifts, making it necessary to impose some restrictions on freedom of expression.

After World War II, in 1946, the British insisted on trying and hanging the despicable William Joyce, better known as "Lord Haw-Haw," for treason. His crime was serving as a radio announcer in the Nazi propaganda network. Freedom of expression does not include the freedom to commit treason.

This brings us to the question: Where does the boundary of legitimate free speech lie? In normal times, statements by Knesset member Haneen Zoabi of Balad, one of the last pan-Arab parties in the Middle East, evoke in me revulsion and contempt. Zoabi expressed support for terrorist organizations and claimed, among other things, that the kidnappers and murderers of the three Israeli teens “were not terrorists.” Now, however, with Israel at war, when the best of our children are putting their lives on the line in the battle against an Islamo-fascist organization, which is hiding behind women and children, it is time to put limits on freedom of expression.