Antisemitism Awareness Act passes the House

[Anonymous]

The house passed the Antisemitism Awareness Act last night.

It includes the following text:

For purposes of this Act, the term “definition of antisemitism”—

(1) means the definition of antisemitism adopted on May 26, 2016, by the IHRA, of which the United States is a member, which definition has been adopted by the Department of State; and

(2) includes the “[c]ontemporary examples of antisemitism” identified in the IHRA definition.

It also includes the following text:

Constitutional protections.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed to diminish or infringe upon any right protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

The IHRA includes the following among the contemporary examples of antisemitism: Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

If a student says, for example, Israel's campaign is Gaza is comparable to the Nazis, it seems that would be antisemitic, as per the house bill. Does that not violate freedom of speech listed in first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I am not a lawyer, but know that there are a lot of lawyers on here. So, just wondering about the likelihood of this becoming law and it's constitutionality. Thanks!

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/6090/text
https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism

[Anonymous]

Does it include opposition to Zionism into the anti-semitism spectrum?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The house passed the Antisemitism Awareness Act last night.

It includes the following text:

For purposes of this Act, the term “definition of antisemitism”—

(1) means the definition of antisemitism adopted on May 26, 2016, by the IHRA, of which the United States is a member, which definition has been adopted by the Department of State; and

(2) includes the “[c]ontemporary examples of antisemitism” identified in the IHRA definition.

It also includes the following text:

Constitutional protections.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed to diminish or infringe upon any right protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

The IHRA includes the following among the contemporary examples of antisemitism: Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

If a student says, for example, Israel's campaign is Gaza is comparable to the Nazis, it seems that would be antisemitic, as per the house bill. Does that not violate freedom of speech listed in first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I am not a lawyer, but know that there are a lot of lawyers on here. So, just wondering about the likelihood of this becoming law and it's constitutionality. Thanks!

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/6090/text
https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism

Under this bill, it sounds like Hannah Arendt would be implicated by this legislation:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/dec/18/hannah-arendt-prize-masha-gessen-israel-gaza-essay

[Anonymous]

This is so stupid. Free speech is only important when people are saying things you don't like.

All speech should be free. Violence should be condemned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does it include opposition to Zionism into the anti-semitism spectrum?

IHRA does not list “zionism” but does have:

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.

[Anonymous]

I think some of the protestors are being incredibly hateful and offensive. However, I'm not sure if this bill will be upheld in court. This law might be unconstitutional for at least three reasons.
1)Violating free speech rights
2)Violating religious freedom
3)Equal protection clause issues

[Anonymous]

"If you want to know who rules over you, look at who you aren't allowed to criticize."

- Orwell

Very prescient

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think some of the protestors are being incredibly hateful and offensive. However, I'm not sure if this bill will be upheld in court. This law might be unconstitutional for at least three reasons.
1)Violating free speech rights
2)Violating religious freedom
3)Equal protection clause issues

Lol you are naive. This gives pro Israel a way of silencing anyone. It is orwellian.

[Anonymous]

The horse left the stable already on this -- boomers are the last gen who are reflexively philosemetic in the us.

israel has become a topic that is polarized by race, age, and political party.

the US circa 2050 and certainly 2100 will NOT be as philosemitic as 1998, which is why you have been seeing tons of pieces in the Atlantic and other papers asking if the 'golden age of American jewry' is over.

[Anonymous]

Blatantly unconstitutional. Our lawmakers have taken an oath for crying out loud. Jefferson would be rolling in his grave.

And because I need to say it, married to a Jew and not an antisemite. I can see the difference between hating people for their religion and disapproving of a foreign government committing genocide against a repressed and effectively powerless people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Blatantly unconstitutional. Our lawmakers have taken an oath for crying out loud. Jefferson would be rolling in his grave.

And because I need to say it, married to a Jew and not an antisemite. I can see the difference between hating people for their religion and disapproving of a foreign government committing genocide against a repressed and effectively powerless people.

Says who? Remember SCOTUS is an arm of the Republican Party. These are the same people leading the charge to silence all protesters. I could see SCOTUS expanding this to include any protest by a minority group(blacks, gays, etc), the action of the government including policing or Republican Party.

Did you listen to the b#llsh#$ argument to make Trump basically a king? This would be approved by SCOTUS is a heart beat.

[Anonymous]

I don't have an issue with this. The IHRA definition has long been used by the State Department and Executive Branch as part of efforts to battle antisemitism.

This legislation now proscribes what "anti-Semitism" means when Department of Education is undertaking a review of a title IV complaint of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and formally adopts the IHRA's "working definition." The issue with the Civil Rights Act is that it does not address religious discrimination.

Here is the IHRA's working definition + illustrative examples:

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations:

Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

-Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
-Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
-Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
-Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
-Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
-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 it 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.
-Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries).

Criminal acts are antisemitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property – such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries – are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews.

Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries.

What Congress should do is pass reciprocal legislation for Muslims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't have an issue with this. The IHRA definition has long been used by the State Department and Executive Branch as part of efforts to battle antisemitism.

This legislation now proscribes what "anti-Semitism" means when Department of Education is undertaking a review of a title IV complaint of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and formally adopts the IHRA's "working definition." The issue with the Civil Rights Act is that it does not address religious discrimination.

Here is the IHRA's working definition + illustrative examples:

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations:

Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

-Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
-Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
-Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
-Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
-Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
-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 it 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.
-Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries).

Criminal acts are antisemitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property – such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries – are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews.

Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries.

What Congress should do is pass reciprocal legislation for Muslims.

… and Christians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't have an issue with this. The IHRA definition has long been used by the State Department and Executive Branch as part of efforts to battle antisemitism.

This legislation now proscribes what "anti-Semitism" means when Department of Education is undertaking a review of a title IV complaint of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and formally adopts the IHRA's "working definition." The issue with the Civil Rights Act is that it does not address religious discrimination.

Here is the IHRA's working definition + illustrative examples:

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations:

Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

-Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
-Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
-Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
-Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
-Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
-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 it 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.
-Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries).

Criminal acts are antisemitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property – such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries – are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews.

Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries.

What Congress should do is pass reciprocal legislation for Muslims.

state dept demographics (esp on the 7th floor) and executive branch demographics (cabinet level especially) are not unbiased spaces.

My issues with the IHRA is jews shouldn't get a special carveout that us hate speech and civil rights laws already offer protections to all.

tbh this is all a moot point anyways because you can pass all the laws you want but the attitudes have permanently shifted by generation.

[Anonymous]

This will have the opposite impact, people will dislike the minority more and the minority will be more aggressive in persecuting perceived violaters