Law House passes antisemitism bill that will target free speech and criticism of Israel

[moosaev]

I agree with you mostly... but the constitution protects people from prosecution not from consequences. Police officers are publicly funded, yet an officer can still be fired for offensive speech.. fired, not jailed.

But I get you.. frankly I'd be more keen to focus on the disruption caused by protestors and not the speech their using... but this is the real world, and there's a difference between political speech and speech that is being used to create a disruption and incite unrest and violence.

The constitution grants the right for people to PEACEFULLY assemble, and you can't with a straight face tell me that screaming the N word into a crowd of black students, or pro-Nazi slogans into a crowd of Jewish students is a "peaceful" act. The definition of antisemitism in the criticized law is exactly this--it does not have anything to do with political stances against Israel or Zionism.

What we all should be more concerned with is bs. headlines--like this one that says that the legal definition in question has anything to do with criticizing Israel. They are taking advantage of the laziness of the reader, and it's on purpose. Ask yourself why someone would write a whole article about how the law is forcing the definition of antisemitism to align with the IHRA, while at the same time not telling it's readers what that definition actually says? Do people really think that omission is just an oversight? They alluded in the headline that it's about criticizing Israel, which is a lie, and in order to maintain that deception they must omit the actual factual information and just hope that their readership won't be dilegent.

You’re either misinformed or outright lying by claiming that this Bill “has nothing to do with political stances on Israel or Zionism.”

The Bill specifically adopts a definition of anti-semitism that is so broad it includes criticism of Israel, specifically it says that “holding Israel to a different standard” is anti-Semitic. What are the implications of that? It’s so broad and open to interpretation that they’ll argue that accusing Israel of genocide or apartheid is “holding it to a different standard”, therefore anti-Semitic, therefore against the law. Israel is currently in the docket at the ICJ for genocide but you might get expelled from university for accusing it of genocide if this Bill gets signed into law. It’s a blatant attempt to protect Israel from criticism by force of law.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Axios had better coverage of the bill:

https://www.axios.com/2024/05/01/antisemitism-bill-mike-johnson-democrats-mtg

 

[moosaev]

Axios had better coverage of the bill:

https://www.axios.com/2024/05/01/antisemitism-bill-mike-johnson-democrats-mtg

So basically a bunch of reps who know it’s a bad Bill voted for it anyway because they’re cowards without a shred of integrity. It sets an abysmal precedent that a Bill that is so nakedly anti-1st A can get passed with such a large majority.

 

[Deorum]

Axios had better coverage of the bill:

https://www.axios.com/2024/05/01/antisemitism-bill-mike-johnson-democrats-mtg

"We're mostly frustrated about the fact that it's a bunch of bullshit that's never going to go anywhere in the Senate, and here we are wasting time and energy," said a House Democrat who voted for the bill.



Lumbering Senate, baby. Let's Go. Stall & Kill This.

 

[Jack V Savage]

So basically a bunch of reps who know it’s a bad Bill voted for it anyway because they’re cowards without a shred of integrity. It sets an abysmal precedent that a Bill that is so nakedly anti-1st A can get passed with such a large majority.

I don't think that's an accurate summary, but I think people get so worked up about Israel (on all sides) that it's hard to have a rational discussion about any issue related to it.

 

[Loiosh]

Axios had better coverage of the bill:

https://www.axios.com/2024/05/01/antisemitism-bill-mike-johnson-democrats-mtg

Reminds of the GOP not voting for border security and conservatives here saying Democrats wouldn't vote for a half measure.

The border bill was better, shame campaigning on an issue is so much more important than working on it.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), a Jewish progressive with concerns about the IHRA antisemitism definition, said he voted for the bill "on the theory that it's basically meaningless and harmless."

"The one we really need is Kathy Manning's bill ... [this] was just one more superficial 'gotcha' bill," Raskin said.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Reminds of the GOP not voting for border security and conservatives here saying Democrats wouldn't vote for a half measure.

The border bill was better, shame campaigning on an issue is so much more important than working on it.

I think it's pretty clear that it's not becoming law in anything like the current form and thus isn't really worth any energy.

The border bill seemed likely to pass until Trump rallied the GOP against it, specifically (and very explicitly) because he wanted the border to be a problem.

 

[Loiosh]

I think it's pretty clear that it's not becoming law in anything like the current form and thus isn't really worth any energy.

The border bill seemed likely to pass until Trump rallied the GOP against it, specifically (and very explicitly) because he wanted the border to be a problem.

Add that to the list of things that should be disqualifying.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Add that to the list of things that should be disqualifying.

I think if you care at all about policy and are paying attention, you're already not voting for Trump. That's why Republicans try to make it about some kind of reality show or identity clash.

 

[RemyR]

I'm growing really sick of this trend of our bills of rights not meaning shit to these people anymore

 

[moosaev]

I don't think that's an accurate summary, but I think people get so worked up about Israel (on all sides) that it's hard to have a rational discussion about any issue related to it.

How is it not an accurate reading? Multiple Dems are quoted saying (or at least hinting) that they think it’s a bad Bill but that they got on board due to optics. In other words they decided to prioritize political expediency over constitutional principles. What am I missing?

 

[Jack V Savage]

How is it not an accurate reading? Multiple Dems are quoted saying (or at least hinting) that they think it’s a bad Bill but that they got on board due to optics. In other words they decided to prioritize political expediency over constitutional principles. What am I missing?

I think you're missing that this is not going to become law. From beginning to end all aspects of it on both sides are about communication. You got played.

 

[moosaev]

I'd suggest keeping your mouth shut until you have a better understanding. I don't talk about religion for the same reason, I don't know shit about it so anything I say is pretty worthless and only clogs up or derails the discussion.



You know that "friend" who keeps getting drunk, harassing girls, starting fights, and then drags you and everyone else in to bail his ass out when he starts getting his ass kicked? And then he says it ain't his fault, his shit don't stink, and everyone's just persecuting him? That's Israel.

That’s the best description of Israel I’ve ever read lol

 

[moosaev]

I think you're missing that this is not going to become law. From beginning to end all aspects of it on both sides are about communication. You got played.

Did you miss the part where I said it sets a terrible precedent that the House overwhelmingly votes for a Bill that is so flagrantly unconstitutional? Do you really think this is appropriate as a form of political signaling? It may not pass now but things like this can shift the Overton window and it should’ve been overwhelmingly voted down on principle. Incredibly wreckless.

 

[fedorthegoat777]

I am pro Israel.

But we need freespeech, this is getting silly.

Free speech first.

 

[freakroor]

can we just make everything illegal.

 

[Halifax]

I am pro Israel.

But we need freespeech, this is getting silly.

Free speech first.

Same.

Laws, once in existence are too easy to bend sideways to suit whatever they want to silence at that moment.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Did you miss the part where I said it sets a terrible precedent that the House overwhelmingly votes for a Bill that is so flagrantly unconstitutional? Do you really think this is appropriate as a form of political signaling? It may not pass now but things like this can shift the Overton window and it should’ve been overwhelmingly voted down on principle. Incredibly wreckless.

That's not really how political positions evolve. In general people take bullshit way too seriously.

 

[moosaev]

That's not really how political positions evolve. In general people take bullshit way too seriously.

Buddy, did you forget how quickly political norms shifted after Trump?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Buddy, did you forget how quickly political norms shifted after Trump?

Trump was a symptom of how nihilistic and authoritarian the coalition already was rather than a cause of it.