And I see their point. If there are laws referencing antisemitism, the scope of those laws would be expanded w/o rewriting them.
So if employers are legally required to prevent racist speech in a workplace, and antisemitism is included in racism (which it should be), then if we talk politics at lunch and someone criticizes Israel, HR would be required to treat that as inappropriate speech for the workplace if they heard about it.
Assuming that the bill passed and was held up by courts.
Does this sort of thing actually happen? I mean, where a law redefines an English word (that's not specifically a legal term), affecting the scope of other laws?
Usually in practice "clarifying" laws are written more like "for purposes of X, Y means Z", not just directly "Y = Z", as though they owned the dictionary (and as though languages were defined by dictionaries).
Courts definitely have that power. The supreme court has declared that tomatoes are vegetables, for example.
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.
The way you win a defamation lawsuit is by proving what you’re claiming is factually correct. I’m gonna need some sort of case law citation showing that what you’re claiming was ever an established interpretation.
“The way you win a defamation lawsuit is by proving what you’re claiming is factually correct” or a non-actionable opinion.
To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the reputation of the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.
The law in question introduces definitions that are accepted as fact under the law.
So if you make up some BS and try to pedal it as fact, it is not protected speech. That doesn’t make your lies facts, nor does it make them opinions. They’re just lies.
EDIT: Before anyone tries to bring up lies being spread in other contexts, this is specifically in the context of defamation, and defamation is an established exception to what constitutes “free speech” under the First Amendment.
Pretty sure their media apparatus can “lawfully” show stock images with people photoshopped to be saluting Hitler on any news about student protests against being complicit in Israel’s genocide now.
Nah, it makes perfect sense! If we don’t support Israel, then we’re not “real” Jews. Or is it that we’re supposed to be self-hating? Either way, I know I always look forward to (usually some flavor of Christian) politicians telling me how to be a Jew.
They had a three parter, with the meteorshower. one of them is the one with the juwbelie where they try to get Moses macaroni pictures and what not. One of the elders there is from the sect of anti-Semites or so.
What it primarily does is tell the Department of Education that when it enforces federal anti-discrimination laws, it must use the definition of antisemitism put forward by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). DoE enforcement actions of this sort are somewhat uncommon, and take a long time to play out. So, it’s really tough to see great relevance
This whole article criticized wording but never gave the words. Did I just miss it? I’m so confused. When I read about this yesterday, I thought the definition specifically separated anti Jewish people and anti Israel. Now I can’t find that.
I believe this is the definition they’re discussing…
IHRA’s non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism:
“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.”
“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.”
This is a slight of hand where they conflate judaism and Israel. The definition starts out as explicitely about Judaism and move towards being explicitly about Israel.
But saying something like “Denying the Muslim people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a sovereign Palestine is a racist endeavor" would get nothing but dropped jaws and racist bleating.
(2) includes the “[c]ontemporary examples of antisemitism” identified in the IHRA definition.
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.
All of these examples are part of the definition. So under this law, saying that Israel is an apartheid state or saying Israel is committing a genocide would be against the law.
ACLU gives a few more examples of how fucked up this is if you are interested in reading.
I don’t believe it would be, actually? Both of your examples do not resemble any of the listed sub-items. Holding all Jewish people responsible for those items would be antisemitic, but they do also explicitly mention that any criticism that could be leveled at another state is valid. Comparing them to the Nazis is a no go, but it sounds as if you can accuse the state of Israel of apartheid or genocide and that is still not antisemitism under this bill.
To be clear, I am opposed to this law and believe it will have a chilling effect on speech. I just don’t think your examples above would be in violation.
Sorry, that “explicit” was referring to another page from the same source I saw referenced elsewhere in regards to this bill. I’ll retract that unless I can find it again.
Are the legal experts saying your examples above would be a violation? Do you have a link to that? If you are referring to the linked article, I’m not sure I’m seeing these two examples listed. Again, just want to emphasize I’m with yall on the bill here. I just want to actually understand and discuss the limits that might be applied here.
The list of “[c]ontemporary 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” that exact wording is part of the law now. So anything the government decides works for them, they can use. And it might get struck down in the end, but random college students don’t have the capital to fight it out in courts. So it will 100% chill speech that criticizes the Israeli government.
Under “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” example, Israel can’t be an apartheid state. So anything that counters that is antisemitic under this law.
Under “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis” example Israel can’t be committing a genocide because it would compare it to the Nazi Germany and their policy justifications used for killing Jews.
The whole list is made up of highly curated examples to create the best shield and sword Israel can use to label anyone that criticizes them as an antisemite.
I’m with you that the primary purpose of this bill is to chill speech. It could have been useful in less charged times but there is zero possibility of passing anything like this without the current zeitgeist interfering in either direction. Regardless, I just cannot agree with your interpretation here. In the current landscape, the hypothetical arguments you presented don’t follow logic that a court would follow.
Accusing Israel of apartheid is not the same as the wording of the text, which is to assert that the existence of Israel itself is racist. Saying Israel did something that Nazi Germany did is not drawing a comparison in the same way that me saying you breathe air is not comparing you to Hitler. I would have to assert “you are like Hitler because you breathe air like he did” to draw a comparison.
I also cannot get down with “they said ‘but not limited to’ so it could literally be anything”. That’s standard boilerplate stuff that is only saying the definition cannot explicitly list every example of antisemitic behavior. It’s not meant to stretch the definition out.
Frankly, I think this bill is dumb. It’s obviously meant as a deterrent for pro-Palestinian voices. The danger in this bill will be in the implementation and enforcement. However, I don’t see anything inherently wrong with the definition of antisemitism used by the bill.
That’s the beauty of a discussion, we don’t have to agree on everything. Thank you for a civil discussion, and time will tell which one of was correct.
Add comment