re: Antisemitism Bill Wrong. It's a violation of equal protection. Hate speech is protected

Mark Dice released a video earlier today, maybe yesterday about this. He had various clips from Shapiro, Schumer, Pelosi, and others, all stating allegiance to Israel. A clip from a woman was played and she said that when there is criticism of Israel from Europe, the Israel supporters will bring up the Holocaust and when the criticism comes from the US, they just label it as antisemitism and she said this is their playbook. He played a clip from Dershowitz telling Jewish people never to apologize for the power and influence they wield. Dice was juxtaposing all of this with the elements from the IHRA that they claim are antisemitic if you say them, such as people being loyal to Israel but not their own nation etc etc etc.

Glenn Greenwald just released a video talking about how Daily Wire is getting a gag order on Candace Owens, making Ben Shapiro's feigned opposition to this very apparent.

I had a thread poking some fun at all of this earlier and it got anchored. It's a touchy subject with a lot of people. None of this will make things better for Israel or Jewish people. There will always be resentment that crops up when a group gets special protections and privileges.

quote:

---

But would it not extend to individuals who are representatives of those institutions?

---

The bill cites violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Code. I see nothing about criminal consequences.

The following is the penalty for violating Title VI. It appears to me that an institution can have funds reduced.

quote:

---

If a recipient of federal assistance is found to have discriminated and voluntary compliance cannot be achieved, the federal agency providing the assistance should either initiate fund termination proceedings or refer the matter to the Department of Justice for appropriate legal action. Aggrieved individuals may file administrative complaints with the federal agency that provides funds to a recipient, or the individuals may file suit for appropriate relief in federal court. Title VI itself prohibits intentional discrimination. However, most funding agencies have regulations implementing Title VI that prohibit recipient practices that have the effect of discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin

---

quote:

---

The bill cites violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Code. I see nothing about criminal consequences.

The following is the penalty for violating Title VI. It appears to me that an institution can have funds reduced.

---

If a university president, Dean of Research or similar person does anything at all that fits the definition of antisemitism by IHRA, all it takes is an accusation that it has led to action against someone that is Jewish, and then all hell can break loose. If the Dean of Research does not approve of funds to renovate a Jewish professor's lab, and that Dean previously spoke on something that the IHRA says is antisemitic, then it's game on.

DOJ can get a court order to compel compliance with whatever an agency wants to see happen in order to not violate Title VI. This will be used against people, not institutions. But because consequences will be applied against institutions as well, innocent people will suffer as funding trickles down to many levels. And if the DOJ gets a court order then things get criminal if you violate the order - and why would you comply with agency demands regarding activity that is protected by the First Amendment? This will spiral very quickly to criminal action and people losing jobs. Every bit of this is unconstitutional.

quote:

---

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

---

While I find much of that stuff reprehensible, free speech basically says there is no such thing as hate speech.

The portion of the Civil rights act they are adding it to is likely a violation of the first amendment.

quote:

---

Even if it "discourages" this type of speech through other means, it is still a useless bill and further erosion of our civil liberties... There is no reason for it under the sun...

---

Understood. I just didn't see the criminal penalty people were fussing about.

Blasphemy

There should be no hate laws or hate speech laws period. If a person harms anyone, there are laws currently on the books to cover it.

This is merely a move to get the left to say that speech has to be free. Showing them that the limits they want to place on our freedoms can easily be used against them as well.