Freedom of speech is the principal pillar of a free government; when this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on its ruins….Ben Franklin
The Antisemitism Awareness Act is a wrecking ball designed to pulverize the First Amendment. While the alleged intention of the bill is to make Jewish students feel safer on campus, the real purpose is to put an end to the anti-genocide demonstrations that have broken out across the country and to prevent the criticism of Israel. The proposed bill invokes a dodgy legal mechanism to derail the protests and to silence Israel’s critics. By using a broad and ambiguous definition of antisemitism, the bill compels university administrators to crackdown on free speech invoking sketchy claims of discrimination. Political analyst Paul Craig Roberts summed it up like this: “if universities …don’t suppress student protests against Israel’s massacre of civilians in Gaza and Lebanon they will lose their accreditation and federal financial support.” In short, universities are being encouraged to quash the free expression of political ideas to preserve their federal funding. This helps to illustrate how Zionist lobbyists are now engaged in a full-throated assault on constitutionally protected civil liberties, namely free speech.
The bill—which already passed the House with a sizable majority—shows how the charge of antisemitism can be used as a coercive political tool to silence Israel’s critics. That is why civil liberties organizations—like the ACLU, PEN America, the Alliance Defending Freedom and even Jewish groups like Bend the Arc and T’ruah—strongly oppose the bill based on free speech grounds. Even so, this attack on constitutionally protected rights has a good chance of passing the senate due to the arm twisting of powerful interest groups that have their tentacles wrapped tightly around both houses of congress. Here’s a brief summary from political analyst Guy Christensen:
The House just passed the Antisemitism Awareness Act which will shut down college protests against Israel and silence all future criticism of the state of Israel. The law literally redefines antisemitism as criticizing the state of Israel and makes it a violation of Title 6 to do so. The purpose of this is to allow politicians to pull federal funding from colleges who don’t stop these college protests and let their students continue to criticize Israel.
We must speak out against the Antisemitism Awareness Act. This is insanity. These people are full-on Zionists trying to silence free speech here in America, trying to silence criticism of the oppression of the Palestinians, criticism of the state of Israel that murdered 14,000 children.
Like I said, the guy who wrote the bill, Mike Lawler, is funded by AIPAC $180,000 (he said to NBC News when talking about this bill.) When you hear “River to the sea, Palestine will be free” that is calling for the eradication of the Jews in the state of Israel. (They are) Literally trying to make it illegal to criticize Israel.
If you don’t know how Title 6 works, all federally funded programs and institutions must follow it or they won’t receive any more federal funding. This includes US colleges and K through 12 schools who are very strict about following Title 6 because they need that funding. They can’t go without it. So, if we let this become law, it would force US colleges to shut down all these protests immediately.
This contends for the most outrageous bill for Israel the government has ever tried to pass. I will not vote or say a kind word about any politician who voted in favor of this bill…. (your representative ) care more about Israel than they care about your free speech. What they are doing is incredibly dangerous. Zionists are scared because American public opinion is changing. Students across the country are protesting against Israel. You know they’re scared because this is one of the boldest things they’ve ever tried to do…..AIPAC and the pro-Israel lobby is behind all of this. Ban AIPAC Stop the Antisemitism Awareness Act. We have to protect our free speech and our right to protest against evil. YourFavoriteGuy@guychristensen_
Not surprisingly, President Donald Trump—whose campaign was given $100 million by a strident Zionist donor—confirmed that he will aggressively implement the blatantly unconstitutional law by cancelling the funding of any college that tolerates the anti-genocide protests. He further stated that he will prosecute the universities for, what he calls, “violations of the civil rights law.” In other words, it is not the tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians that have been killed by Israel who are the victims, but the Jewish university students who feel “unsafe.” (Note—Trump refers to the protestors views as “antisemitic propaganda”)
Under the new bill, the U.S. Department of Education will be required to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition and contemporary examples of anti-Semitism when enforcing anti-discrimination laws on college campuses. But, as human rights activist Sofia Lopez points out, “the IHRA definition was never intended to be used for legal purposes, and it covers a broad swath of expression the First Amendment protects. Requiring schools to use it would not help address discrimination at institutions of higher education; it would merely pressure them to punish people who are expressing their own political views.
In order to grasp the absurdity of this bill, we must know how congress defines antisemitism. (because the definition will decide whether there has been a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.) This is from an article by Joe Cohn at fire.org. The definition reads:
The definition targets “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews” — a description so broad that it allows for the investigation and punishment of core political speech, such as criticism of Israeli policy. Anti-Semitism Awareness Act continues to threaten free speech on campus, fire.org
Repeat: “A certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews”??
Is that not sufficiently vague?
Yes, it is. And, by the way, isn’t hate speech protected under the first amendment? (Note—We are NOT inferring that the anti-genocide protesters express hatred towards Jews. They most certainly do NOT.)
Indeed, hate speech is protected. This is from the University of Milwaukee:
Hate speech may be offensive and hurtful; however, it is generally protected by the First Amendment. One common definition of hate speech is “any form of expression through which speakers intend to vilify, humiliate or incite hatred against a group or a class of persons on the basis of race, religion, skin color, sexual identity, gender identity, ethnicity, disability or national origin.” Courts have ruled that restrictions on hate speech would conflict with the First Amendment’s protection of the freedom of expression. Since public universities are bound by the First Amendment, public universities must adhere to these rulings. However, universities also have an obligation to create a safe, inclusive learning environment for all members of the campus community.
With these considerations in mind, courts in the United States have found that expression generally cannot be punished based on its content or viewpoint. Thus, although hate speech, alone, receives constitutional protection, any expression that constitutes a true threat, incitement to imminent lawless action, discriminatory harassment or defamation can be punished by UWM for those reasons. What is hate speech, and is it protected by the First Amendment?, University of Milwaukee
So, our representatives in congress know that hate speech is protected but they pushed through a bill based on the “perception of hatred towards Jews”? Does that make any sense? (Once again, the protestors are not threatening Jews by opposing Israel’s genocide. They are expressing their political views which are protected speech.)
And it gets worse, because they adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism which provides a list of examples to illustrate the kinds of speech it says “may” constitute antisemitism. These include:
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
Applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
The Wrong Way to Fight Campus Antisemitism, PEN
So, saying that Netanyahu’s policies in Gaza are similar to those of Nazi Germany is the same as denying a black man a job or a house because he is black? (one is a comparison while the other is blatant discrimination.)
Can you see how ridiculous this is?
It’s worth noting, that the author of the IHRA definition, Kenneth Stern, has “stated that using the definition as enforceable policy is “both unconstitutional and unwise” and “the worst way to address” antisemitism on campus.” He even said that “enshrining a particular definition of something that’s inherently involving political speech into law” in this way is “a total travesty.” fire.org
It is a travesty, but that hasn’t stopped Trump or our AIPAC-controlled congress from trying to impose it on the American people. No, they are determined to pass this liberty-eviscerating abomination into law. God help us.
Video 1:30 min… Jewish Action explains why Jews should oppose the Antisemitism Awareness Act
And, yes, there are a large number of Jews who oppose this bill and who understand that—the backlash from Americans who think a foreign government wants to bulldoze the Bill of Rights so they can carve out a special protected status for themselves and their coreligionists—is going to be ferocious. One such opponent is self-professed Zionist Jerry Nadler (D-NY) who recently made this impressive statement on the floor of the House. Here’s what he said:
“Mr. Speaker, I have devoted much of my life to combating antisemitism, and I am as attuned as anyone to threats and bigotry aimed at Jewish people. I will take lectures from no one about the need for vigorous efforts to fight antisemitism on campus or anywhere else. I am also a deeply committed Zionist who firmly believes in Israel’s right to exist as a homeland for the Jewish people.
But, as someone who is also a longtime champion of protecting freedom of speech, I must oppose this misguided bill….
This definition, adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, or IHRA, includes “contemporary examples of antisemitism”. The problem is that these examples may include protected speech, in some contexts, particularly with respect to criticism of the State of Israel.
To be clear, I vehemently disagree with the sentiments towards Israel expressed in those examples—and too often criticism of Israel does, in fact, take the form of virulent antisemitism. Many Jewish students no longer feel safe on campus and some colleges have not done nearly enough to protect them.
But while this definition and its examples may have useful applications in certain contexts, by effectively codifying them into Title VI, this bill threatens to chill constitutionally protected speech. Speech that is critical of Israel—alone—does not constitute unlawful discrimination. By encompassing purely political speech about Israel into Title VI’s ambit, the bill sweeps too broadly.
As the ACLU notes, if this legislation were to become law, colleges and universities that want to avoid Title VI investigations, or the potential loss of federal funding, could end up suppressing protected speech criticizing Israel or supporting Palestinians. Moreover, it could result in students and faculty self-censoring their political speech. Even the IHRA definition’s lead author, Kenneth Stern, opposes codifying this definition for this reason.
Vigorous enforcement of federal civil rights law does not depend on defining terms like “antisemitism” or “racism”. In fact, codifying one definition of antisemitism, to the exclusion of all other possible definitions, could actually undermine federal civil rights law because antisemitism, like other forms of bigotry, evolves over time, and future conduct that comes to be widely understood as antisemitic may no longer meet the statutory definition.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot ignore the context in which this legislation is being rushed to the floor in a cynical attempt to exploit for political gain the deep divisions currently on display at college campuses across the country. Much of this activity—whether you agree with the sentiments expressed at these protests or not—constitutes legally protected speech and expression.
Some participants—shamefully—have exhibited antisemitic conduct, and the Department of Education will rightfully investigate them, consulting the IHRA definition, and other relevant definitions, in the process. They do not need this legislation to help them with their inquiries…
There is no excuse for bigotry, threats, or violence directed at anyone, anywhere, and it is imperative that we confront the scourge of antisemitism. And Congress can help. But this legislation is not the answer….
….this legislation threatens freedom of speech, one of our most cherished values, while doing nothing to combat antisemitism. For these reasons, I urge Members to oppose the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.”
Ranking Member Nadler Floor Statement on H.R. 6090, the “Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023”, US House of Representatives
I’m not crazy about Nadler, but he certainly got this one right. In contrast, Trump sounds like a full-fledged tyrant. Maybe he should take a minute and reflect on the impact his actions will have on our most precious liberty, freedom of speech. He might even want to mull-over the prescient words of Harry Truman who said:
Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.
Video—“Dictating the views Americans can have about a foreign country is madness, it is pure evil…” Matt Walsh says “No” to the Antisemitism Awareness Act. 4-minute video