Free speech organizations condemn racism, but say expenses is very large
According to its partner, the national legislation that would broaden the definition of racism as it applies to colleges does not violate free speech.
In response to inquiries about the Antisemitism Awareness Act and its results on free speech, Republican Representative Mike Lawler’s company provided three reports to The College Fix.
According to the policy, the bill would use the “definition of hatred set forth by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance for the protection of Federal antidiscrimination legislation relating to educational plans or activities, and for other reasons.”
In addition to” Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis,” those definitions include” Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism ( e .g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel ) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
An unusual number of politicians have voiced opposition to the bill, primarily on basis of free conversation. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Republican representative from conservative Georgia, claimed the bill might make Christian utterances about Jesus ‘ death illegal. Daily Wire critic Ben Shapiro, who is an Orthodox Jew, even criticized the legislation. Senator Bernie Sanders claimed that it could condemn those who criticize Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel.
The act is now pending, but Democratic Senators, including Tim Scott, have colleague policy. His company did not respond to a post request. His company gave , The Fix a call for internet questions, but no further responses were received after reaching out to that contact address.
In an email to The Fix, Lawler’s office shared three “f ] act checks that clearly indicate there are no dangers to free speech and that the bill is intended to enable the Department of Education to properly address antisemitic hate crimes on campus.
A Politifact content lists various free speech issues, including those raised by the ACLU, as well as differing constitutional scholars ‘ ideas.
Another article cited a reality check by Agency that quoted Lawler as saying that the bill does n’t make biblical talk illegal. Rep. Lawler said in May that “what it means when it uses that modern case is that these cases may be taken into account, but it depends on the context of what is said.” ” If you’re calling all Jews Christ- murders, next yes, that is against- Arabic and everyone understands that. But if you’re referring to the Bible in perspective, next no, nobody is saying that that is against- Semitic”.
A second post was from Our Sunday Visitor, a Catholic release.
Although it did not include any constitutional scholars interviews, it was noted that President Donald Trump used the International Holocaust concept in his executive order.
The drafter of the concept, Kenneth Stern, has earlier said he did not want it to be used to control speech. He criticized President Trump for his executive order in 2019 and claimed that “rightwing Zionists are using it as a weapon.”
Free talk and Christian organizations are also concerned about how the costs might be used.
Alliance Defending Freedom referred The Fix to a post from its chairman, Kristen Waggoner.
She called school antisemitism “repugnant” and said it” should remain condemned”.
The hatred that is emerging on university campuses is repulsive. But while horrible statement should be condemned, the First Amendment protects one’s conversation. The cure for terrible speech is good speech, no government censorship. The antidote for unlawful conduct ( i. e., violence and …
— Kristen Waggoner ( @KWaggonerADF) May 2, 2024
However, she opposes the policy.
According to her on X,” Congress should work properly and with due consideration for the First Amendment as it grapples with the explosion of hatred across our state” given the fraught history of laws that call out certain viewpoints for punishment. That includes making sure that no laws it passes can be used to condemn people for their speech, which is constitutionally protected.
The legislation, according to Catholic League CEO Bill Donahue, “has the noble purpose of attempting to fight anti-Semitism,” needs to be corrected by removing the existing definition.
The IHRA concept of anti-Semitism emphasizes speech. That is risky territory”, Donahue told The Fix via a press statement.  ,” By comparison, the language of the parliamentary bill concentrates on conduct, particularly discrimination. That is on many safer grounds, lawfully speaking”.
” More significant, the act ends with a reiteration of our First Amendment rights, which includes flexibility of speech”, Donahue said. The IHRA report does not mention any speech protections, and for good reason: the intention is to punish unpleasant speech. As for, it is a pretty un- American approach to this content”.
Hillel, a pro-Israel business, did not respond to two contacted requests for comment in the previous month. StandWithUs declined to comment.
PEN America referred The Fix to its previous statement on the bill, which it said was” could harm academic freedom, complimentary speech, and genuine social speech”.
The free speech organization claimed in May that” codifying the IHRA definition, which was never intended to be legally binding or otherwise codified into law, is not the best way to combat antisemitism and bigotry.
” Its vague nature is ill- suited to serve as a legal standard, much less form a basis for punitive action”.
MORE: Penn nixes Israel divestment vote
IMAGE: CSPAN/YouTube
Follow The College Fix on Twitter and Like us on Facebook.
