Three women sit before their country’s highest deliberative body, on trial for incitement of hatred against a religious group. Their statements, which rigorously distinguish political speech from criminal harassment, earn widespread condemnation from liberal and conservative commentators alike. In the eyes of the federal government and the court of public opinion, these women have crossed an unspoken boundary on acceptable political discourse. Calls for their public punishment abound.

One would be forgiven for confusing this scenario with the 2012 trial of Russian punk band Pussy Riot. In fact, I’m referring to the recent Congressional hearings on antisemitism at college campuses, which began on December 5, 2023, in Washington, DC. University of Pennsylvania president Elizabeth Magill and Harvard University president Claudine Gay resigned after backlash to their testimony, while the leaders of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Columbia University also faced immense pressure to step down. While the state-sanctioned cases against Pussy Riot and the Ivy League presidents differ vastly in context, content, and consequences, they rely upon the same tactic: invoking accusations of religious intolerance, faith-based harassment, and faith-based animus as a reason to censor political speech. The repercussions of the Pussy Riot trial in Russia should give all Americans pause as they consider the appropriate tools, and actors, to combat hate speech.