House-Passed Anti-Semitism Bill Stirs Free Speech Debate

Contents

First Amendment Concerns Concerns ‘Deeply Overblown,’ Supporters Say

Opponents of the bill say it could chill free speech due to ambiguities in the text; opponents have dismissed these concerns as “deeply overblown.”

A House-passed bill designed to combat anti-Semitism has spurred debates across party lines about the potential impact it could have on First Amendment rights.

The bill in question, the Antisemitism Awareness Act, overwhelmingly passed the U.S. House of Representatives on May 1 in a 321–91 vote.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has been tight-lipped on the bill, and hasn’t committed to bringing it to the floor for a vote.

Likewise, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre declined to answer whether President Joe Biden would sign the legislation, leaving its ultimate fate uncertain.

Opponents of the legislation say that it could, at worst, have a chilling effect on freedom of speech due to ambiguities in the text. Proponents have dismissed these concerns as “deeply overblown.”

The legislation comes amid a torrent of anti-Semitic incidents and violence on America’s college campuses.

The bill would explicitly protect Jews under Title VI—which protects against certain overtly discriminatory actions, such as denying a student access to a federally-funded school, club, or other organization on the basis of race, color, or religion—of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Under the bill, the government, mainly the Department of Education, would be required to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism to determine whether an incident was anti-Semitic.

The bill would codify a 2019 executive order by former President Donald Trump that adopted the IHRA definition government-wide.

However, some have expressed concerns that the bill could be used to target students who express otherwise lawful condemnation of Israel, potentially forcing schools to punish these students.

First Amendment Concerns

Critics of the legislation say that, due to ambiguities in its terms, it could stifle First Amendment protected speech.

This concern has been expressed, for varying reasons, by members of both parties.

Some Democrat lawmakers have cited clauses of IHRA’s definition of anti-Semitism that they say could be used to penalize those critical of Israel.

Specifically, critics have cited examples in the IHRA definition that say that claiming the state of Israel is a “racist endeavor,” comparing Israeli policy to Nazi policy, and “applying double standards” to Israel compared to other nations constitute anti-Semitic claims.

The IHRA definition says criticisms of Israel “similar to that leveled against any other country” are not anti-Semitic.

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), himself a Jew, criticized the bill on these grounds.

“The IHRA definition includes examples of antisemitism that might sweep in perfectly valid criticism of the state of Israel that, alone, does not necessarily constitute unlawful harassment or antisemitism,” Mr. Nadler wrote in a Wahington Post op-ed.

At worst, critics fear that these aspects of the IHRA definition could compel schools to take punitive measures against students who express otherwise-protected speech critical of Israel or risk losing federal funding.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) called the definition in the bill “overbroad,” saying it “equates protected political speech with unprotected discrimination.”

Reps. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) expressed the same concerns in comments to The Epoch Times.

“My concern is that it violates First Amendment speech,” Mr. Khanna said.

Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), the bill’s sponsor, dismissed these criticisms, telling The Epoch Times that “Being anti-Zionist is being anti-Semitic.”

Some conservatives have pointed to a clause in IHRA’s definition of anti-Semitism that describes “claims that Jews killed Jesus” as anti-Semitism.

Because this claim is stated in the Bible, these conservative critics have expressed concerns that the legislation could be used to target or pull funding from Christian schools.

This criticism was expressed by Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.).

Proponents of the bill have dismissed these concerns as a “mischaracterization” of the IHRA definition, with the director of the Anti-Defamation League, Jonathan Greenblatt,
saying that such concerns are simply “promot[ing] the age-old antisemitic myth of deicide.”

Concerns ‘Deeply Overblown,’ Supporters Say

Proponents of the legislation say the criticism is wrong, arguing that it merely extends existing civil rights protections to Jews.

Tal-Or Cohen Montemayor, founder and CEO of CyberWell, which combats anti-Semitism online, said that the reactions about free speech are “deeply overblown.”

The bill “protects specifically against being used to violate or infringe upon constitutional rights,” she said, noting a section at the end of the bill which explicitly states that the bill will have no effect on First Amendment rights.

Arie Lipnick, a board member of Combat Antisemitism Movement, told The Epoch Times the bill would make little change to current law.

“There’s nothing new under the sun,” he said of the bill, arguing it would have no effect on protected speech.

A student simply holding a sign stating “Israel has no right to exist,” though considered anti-Semitic under the IHRA definition, would not compel a response from the university or bring any penalties to the student, he said.

But, he said, if student activists blocked the doors of the school library to keep Jewish students out because they are Jewish—all while holding up anti-Semitic signs—that would constitute an illegal act of discrimination and would compel a response from the university.

“This governs actions, not words,” he said.

Kenneth Marcus, who led the Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Education under President Trump, echoed the sentiment.

“Most forms of anti-Semitism … do not violate any law whatsoever,” he told The Epoch Times, arguing that speech currently protected under the First Amendment would remain protected.

Lawmakers, meanwhile, have presented the bill as a necessary response to the ongoing protests rocking college campuses across the United States.

“This bill does what university leaders will not: condemn these acts of hatred & support Jewish students across the country,” Mr. Lawler said in a post on X.

Rep. Bryan Steil (R-Wis.) told The Epoch Times, “I think it’s a great opportunity for us to make sure that we’re speaking out against the anti-Semitism we’re seeing in college campuses across the country.”

With both Mr. Schumer and the White House tight-lipped on next steps for the bill, it’s uncertain if it will ever become law.