The Antisemitism Awareness Act Will Make It Illegal To Criticize Israel on Campus
The protesters deserve criticism—but Congress is the real threat.

Raucous pro-Palestine protests have taken over college campuses across the country for the past several days. At UCLA, protesters declared areas of campus off-limits to pro-Israel students and blocked them from entering certain spaces, even just to get to class. At night, masked counter-protesters attacked the pro-Palestine encampment, tearing down barricades and shooting fireworks at the protesters.
At the University of Texas at Austin, police brutally dispersed student protesters. Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein was among those arrested at Washington University in St. Louis. Administrators at Brown University persuaded protesters to disband their encampment peacefully after agreeing to discuss their demands for financial divestiture from companies that do business with the Israeli military.
Events at Columbia University came to a head after the authorities finally tired of the occupation of Hamilton Hall. Protesters had smashed the windows of the administrative building, entered it, taken over, held a janitor hostage, and demanded humanitarian aid—not for Gaza, but for themselves. (I.e., they wanted snacks.)
Reporter grills Columbia student after she demands the university help feed protestors occupying Hamilton Hall:
"It seems like you're saying, 'we want to be revolutionaries, we want to take over this building, now would you please bring us some food'." pic.twitter.com/vNczSAM4T1
— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) April 30, 2024
It is easy to make fun of these protesters, many of whom seem to know very little about why they are even protesting. And some of their antics deserve not just mockery, but condemnation: Statements in support of terrorist violence and exhortations for "Zionists" to be killed "or worse" are contemptible, as are tactics that involve preventing other students from moving about campus and pursuing their education.
But critics of the campus left should not lose sight of the much greater threat, which is that campus authority figures, members of law enforcement, and even national legislators will act in a manner that gravely threatens the free speech rights of everyone. Indeed, in response to the protests, identity-obsessed busybodies are already working overtime to discourage protests on the grounds that offensive speech is a threat to the safety of Jewish students.
Safe Space Reprise
These are not new arguments; for years, university bureaucrats have subtly chipped away at their institutions' stated protections for free speech by invoking dubious safety concerns. You might remember the concept of the safe space: A very real notion, frequently invoked by progressive student activists, that being forced to confront speech with which they disagree is a form of physical violence.
In my first book, Panic Attack: Young Radicals in the Age of Trump, I traveled to college campuses and interviewed activists. What I learned was that for a variety of reasons—their upbringing, their ideology, their social circles—they did not want free and unfettered debate. They thought that outside speakers, professors, and even other students should be silenced for expressing nonprogressive views. In fact, they viewed the university administration's role as that of a parent, shielding them from painful speech. Administrators were all too happy to comply, and school after school took steps to shield their most unreasonable students from emotional vulnerability. Not all of these efforts are explicitly contrary to free speech principles, even though they were universally silly: In 2016, for instance, the University of Pennsylvania created a safe space so that students spooked by former President Donald Trump's rise to the presidency could take time to breathe, play with coloring books, and pet some puppies. Duke University's 2016-era safe space—a production of the campus's diversity, equity, and inclusion bureaucracy—included the presence of a social worker.
More perniciously, hundreds of campuses created bias incident reporting systems, whereby students were instructed to call the campus authorities—in some cases, the literal cops—if they overheard anyone say something that could offend another person on the basis of a protected class, such as race, gender, sexuality, or ability status. At Colby College, someone filed a bias incident report when they overheard the phrase "on the other hand," with no explanation given, though I gather the ever-vigilant person worried that a one-handed person might take offense.
These developments on campuses produced widespread mockery from many Democrats as well as Republicans. Aside from a minority of extremely difficult young people, and the administrators who coddle them, most people do not think the university's job is to protect students from having their feelings hurt.
Enter Congress
Unfortunately, many elected officials are hypocrites, and during a perceived crisis—like the one unfolding on college campuses right now—they are all too eager to pass bad laws. Case in point: On Wednesday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Antisemitism Awareness Act by a margin of 320–91. This bill empowers the Education Department to take action against educational institutions that do not sufficiently combat antisemitic speech on campus. It also defines antisemitism incredibly broadly; Rep. Thomas Massie (R–Ky.), who voted against the bill, pointed out on X that political statements about Israel could be punished if the bill became law.*
Do you agree with all of these examples of antisemitism? Should people in America be prosecuted for saying these things in all contexts? I think not. This is a poorly conceived unconstitutional bill and I will vote no. pic.twitter.com/L3AI5MCFGw
— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) May 1, 2024
Some of the statements deemed impermissible antisemitism include "denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination" with respect to a Jewish state and "applying a double standard" to the state of Israel. It should go without saying, but the First Amendment robustly protects the right to disagree with the political project of Israel. This bill is obviously unconstitutional, and moreover, a clear violation of the idea that college students don't need protection from uncomfortable speech. Universities must protect their campuses from violence and harassment, whether motivated by antisemitism, some other political animus, or any other cause. It's the action that should count, not the content of the belief.
The collective national media are obsessed with campus protests, and understandably so—the spectacle of disproportionately elite, privileged young people resorting to histrionics is frequently amusing to general audiences. People should feel free to mock them, but let's not forget that Congress is using them as a pretext to grant vast new powers to federal bureaucrats, with the explicit goal of enshrining into law a new right not to be offended: one giant safe space.
This Week on Free Media
Reason's Emma Camp and I mocked Drew Barrymore's cringeworthy interview with Vice President Kamala "Momala" Harris, surveyed media coverage of the campus protests, criticized the Biden campaign's youth outreach strategy, and argued about RFK Jr.'s appeal.
Worth Watching
Famed satire website The Onion was recently acquired by Ben Collins, a former disinformation beat reporter for NBC News. (Regular readers will know Collins and I have clashed before.)
That said, I have to give him props for his plan to revive The Onion's TV department. I am particularly eager to the see return of Today Now, the site's mock morning show. The entire archive is available here; the humor has only become more relevant for me over time, now that I, too, host a morning show. It's hard to pick a favorite, but here's one.
*Correction: This article has been updated to more accurately reflect the language of the Antisemitism Awareness Act.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Words and ideas are dangerous.
Almost like they are sticks and stones....
The tail wags the dog.
Is this how Jews plan to get away with their holocaust in Gaza? By criminalizing the recognition of it.
So even when Netanyahu and his ministers have arrest warrants issued for genocide and crimes against humanity, and they continue their genocide in Gaza, Israel and Jews are above the law and above criticism.
How low do you have to go to be criticized?
The U.S. Army Air Corp killed over 100,000 people in Germany in WWII. On March 9 & 10, 1945, U.S. bombers killed over 100,000 in Tokyo. Yet, we were not accused of genocide then. Why the double standard with Israel, Rob Misek? What should Israel do with Hamas, who has vowed to eliminate Israel and kill all of their inhabitants?
What are you suggesting, that the US should be charged for committing genocide or that Nazis never should have been?
Israel’s genocidal intent and execution is clear.
Netanyahu is responsible for telling the IDF to commit genocide by referencing the Jewish biblical “god approved” genocide of women and children with the story of AMALEK. Clearly inciting genocide. With over 24,000 non combatant women and children intentionally targeted and killed and IDF soldiers on record rejoicing about it referencing Amalek, the effect of Netanyahus instructions are obvious.
Israeli defence minister Yoav Gallant said Israel was fighting “human animals” and that they will be “starved of food and water” which Israel has done and continues to do.
Amichay Eliyahu, the minister for heritage, suggested dropping a nuclear bomb on Gaza. Israel isn’t supposed to have nuclear weapons. Saddam Hussein was hung for crimes against humanity and he didn’t even have WMD much less threaten to use them.
The country’s mainly ceremonial president, Isaac Herzog, who described Palestinians as “an entire nation out there that is responsible” demonstrates the genocidal intention.
These statements in combination with their actual execution clearly meets the UN definition and criteria for genocide aka holocaust.
ALL nations signatory to the UN genocide convention HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO OPPOSE IT. Not deny it and send bombs money and troops to support it.
October 7 was an inside job.
The following video is the best compilation of evidence to date that proves October 7 was an inside job coordinated by Israel as an excuse to commit genocide in Gaza.
https://richardgage911.substack.com/p/new-documentary-on-gaza-october-7
The video proves that Israel, funded, coordinated and enabled the October 7 attacks.
It shows that Israel opened the gate to welcome trucks carrying Hamas through the wall.
It shows how Israel not only ignored repeated warnings from their many surveillance sources but withdrew all defences from the wall and emptied their military bases just hours before the attack and had ZERO response for more than 6 hours.
It shows and proves that the IDF attacked the concert goers and the kibbutz’s with Apache helicopters and tanks.
It shows that they sacrificed dozens of their IDF forces to blame Hamas.
It shows that only handfuls of Hamas soldiers wandered for hours through the evacuated areas looking for soldiers to fight but finding none.
It shows that the hostages that were taken by Hamas said they were treated well.
It shows that Israel has funded Hamas with billions in cash in suitcases in the backs of cars
I think the point is if you are at war with a people and they have weapons too then it's hard to make the accusations of genocide stick. Genocide, to be taken seriously, needs to be against an unarmed population whose government you are not at war with.
All signatories to the UN genocide convention, including Israel and the US, say you’re full of shit.
Genocide
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
Killing members of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
The Genocide Convention establishes in Article I that the crime of genocide may take place in the context of an armed conflict, international or non-international, but also in the context of a peaceful situation.
If your answer is the UN it must have been a stupid question.
Question, are the Russians or the Ukrainians the ones committing genocide?
Creating an international body for justice is easy. You just need to win a world war.
Maintaining and growing it is much more difficult. For that you have to walk the talk.
Israel is a lost cause. It has always defied UN resolutions since their creation to create their occupied apartheid terrorist state. They’ve ONLY gotten away with their atrocities by playing the perpetual victim of a holocaust card.
Now Israel is clearly the perpetrators of a holocaust and they’re being helped by other nations signatory to the UN genocide convention.
The world is watching and protesting.
"Creating an international body for justice is easy. You just need to win a world war."
Is it really an "international body for justice" if it has no capacity to enforce any ruling?
If it were like the UN, and most other vestiges of "international law", then most of the "enforcement" role would have either been reserved for, or relegated to the USA, depending on the timeline. The problem there is that it literally empowers the US government to decide who is or isn't effectively "above the law".
If the ICJ were to issue a ruling tomorrow naming any of the last 4 living US Presidents guilty of international crimes for anything ranging from the Drone Program in Central Asia (which even US Media was referring to as a "war crime" in 2008, then obfuscating for the duration of the Obama Administration despite its massive expansion from 2009-2014), or the "Five Eyes" domestic surveillance cartel exposed by Snowden, or any number of other messses left over from the Cold War which haven't been rectified yet, would any significant portion of the US population be calling for them to surrender to that court?
Until it has meaningful jurisdiction which supersedes the national sovereignty of every country on the planet, and the means to impose that jurisdiction, the ICJ is barely more real that Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, and we've established what you think should befall anyone who encourages the willing to believe in those things....
Why would both the US and Israel be signatories to “the tooth fairy”?
“ International Justice: Are we better off without the ICJ and the ICC?
On the one hand, until we have a better system to replace them, the answer is ‘no’; but on the other, if they lead us to sit back complacently thinking that they are the solution to international justice, the answer is ‘yes’. Something better is clearly needed: a justice system that is founded on clear ethical principles that do not need decades to unravel and effective mechanisms that cannot be undermined by Nation States.”
The only Jewish related genocide was committed against them by your heroes in Nazi Germany.
"...Why the double standard with Israel, Rob Misek?..."
Because Misek is an antisemitic piece of Nazi shit.
To be fair, there was no United Nations with a Human Rights Committe led by mostly Arab nations at the time.
"The tail wags the dog."
If the global Jewish conspiracy that you believe in had 1/3 the power you've ascribed to them, they'd be the "dog" and not the "tail".
Although if that were the case, they'd also have tracked you by your IP address (although we can all tell by your words that you're licking Richard Spencer's wingtips clean in Whitefish, MT and getting his coffee since he was banned from the local Starbucks) and you'd have been grabbed up off the street by Mossad goons years ago...
Lies require secrets as secrets require lies.
The corrupt powers that advocate genocide in Gaza depend upon secrecy.
When bibi and Biden swing on the gallows for crimes against humanity, those pulling the strings in the shadows will continue uninterrupted.
Putin and his oligarchs have similar warrants issued against them by the very same court and continues with the invasion of Ukraine, which has barely been slowed by the USA providing half as much aid to Ukraine over less than 3 years as we've given to Israel spread over three generations.
Is Putin also "above the law"?
Or maybe the ICJ lacks any meaningful enforcement mechanism and is an entirely symbolic entity which is there to be either amplified or ignored as the politics of the particular situation require?
With the choice being either war or international justice, the innocent victims of the destruction of war along with every rational person on earth probably choose justice.
The UN, ICJ and ICJ represent international justice albeit in an environment of shadow government secrecy they haven’t been very successful.
So, you can criticize America and "white folks/males (which is just a thin veil attacking European Americans who are Christian) but not a state founded on central and eastern European ethno nationalism? Nice to see AIPAC deciding the Bill of Rights can't be applied to Israel. The hypocrisy is for decades "secular" Jews have been on the far left in almost every social issue and been proponents of the whole "white privilege" narrative..but forbid even questioning Zionism...what BS.
First, I think that was sarcasm.
Second, the Bill of Rights doesn't apply outside of territory controlled by the United States. That's why the Guantanamo Naval Base leased from Cuba was where terrorists captured were sent to be tortured. It wasn't US soil.
Freedom means asking permission and obeying commands.
Like returning documents when asked?
Or masking.
“No one made you wear a mask!”
-some liar
""they did not want free and unfettered debate. They thought that outside speakers, professors, and even other students should be silenced for expressing nonprogressive views. "'
While calling other people fascist.
I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help.
I hate anti-semitism as much as just about anyone can, but this is a terrible idea. Words are not actions, and freedom of speech should be nearly absolute, with only very rare and very specific exceptions.
It's interesting that a bunch of (politically conservative) people who are pretty strongly on the pro-Israel side of these recent issues do not like this bill at all:
https://notthebee.com/article/house-passes-antisemitism-awareness-act-and-people-are-a-little-suspicious-that-it-might-destroy-the-first-amendment
And also a number of the Democrats who voted against are from the progressive left. Cori Bush and Loren Boebert voted the same. Mat Gaetz and AOC, ditto. Thomas Massie and Jerry Nadler.
https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2024172
Hate the bill but also pretty much hate everyone involved here. I'm pretty conservative and pro-Israel, but using the law to shut down anti-semitic speech is wrong. The speech is fine, but the intimidation, violence, occupation, etc. are a problem. The pro-Hamas activists are a bunch of dumb entitled kids directed and funded by large progressive organizations (probably funded by government.) If they were bring reasonable they are of course free to advocate for Israel to become Palestine and criticize Israel. When they refuse to follow any reasonable social and legal rules then they need to get the fuck out.
The people attacking the camp are assholes too. I question if they are astroturf or even just pushed to vigilantism by the university and police being hands-off regarding the protester's bullshit.
Show me where the cops have been too heavy-handed. If people are told to move it along and refuse then I'm not upset about them meeting force as a result of refusing the gentle resolution.
Fuck these progressive activists, fuck the grandstanding anti-speech politicians, fuck any counter-protesters who engage in violence, and fuck the police if they are being unreasonably aggressive (which I doubt.)
“A bunch of dumb entitled kids”. Yeah, that’s all it is. It’s not like there’s socialists in a major political party in the U.S. or anything, or a senator who supported Daniel Ortega. It’s not like there are media outlets named after terrorists from Socialist revolutions - Jacobin
Jacobin - radical during French revolution.
Jacobite - supporter of Catholic restoration in Scotland/Bonnie Prince Charlie.
Jag-off -mtrueman
There's a deep irony with the creators and contributors to the jacobin site, especially in the trump era.
Taking on the name of the movement whose excesses led to the "reign of terror" while they imagine themselves to be part of some kind of "last line of defense" preventing exactly that.
I've never considered trump to be fit for any elected office (he's too narcissistic to be dealt into a game where being a sociopath is virtually the buy-in stakes), but there's far more of an "existential threat to the Republic" in the lengths that have been taken and the weaponization of State power which have been brought to bear to stop him. The reasoning of the Dem party is approaching Vietnam-era "in order to protect the village, we had to destroy the village" logic rather quickly if it hasn't already reached that point.
"The people attacking the camp are assholes too."
"Show me where the cops have been too heavy-handed."
When they attack the camp? Assuming that the counter protestors are off duty cops leavened with paid Zionist agitators.
Assumes facts not in evidence.
You're assuming something else?
No, simply pointing out that you are full of shit.
pretty much hate everyone involved here
Hey, that's the working title of my autobiography.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
Judaism is a religion. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
Now we can do "Shall not be infringed."
CB
This is why you don't let the camel get its nose in the tent. Soon the whole camel will be in the tent. Probably having cookies with the mouse.
Judaism is the traditional religion of the Jewish people.
Title VI does not cover discrimination on the basis of religion, but it does address "race, color, and national origin". The Antisemitism Awareness Act clarifies that even if a race (ethnicity, common origin) shares a religion, discrimination on the basis of that race is covered by Title VI, same as if the race did not have a traditional religion.
Nobody argues that discrimination on the basis of being Japanese is not covered by Title VI, even if Shinto is the traditional religion of the Japanese people.
This won't survive in a district court with a Jewish judge, a Jewish plaintiff and a Jewish lawyer defending the government. But I think the politicians who passed it already know that.
>>Congress is the real threat.
+1 correct premise.
[scratches head]
I mean, as much as I despise people like Jan Schakowsky, Ted Lieu, and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz are they the ones preventing Jewish students from getting to class?
Seems like history is replete with quotes about double-edged swords, cunning of the foxes *as murderous as* the violence of the wolves, and other "It can be two things!".
Ultimately, I think a lot of us are pretty sure the Marxism is spread pretty far and wide between Congress, The Deep State, and various State and local authorities and even educational institutions to passively conspire to generate conflict, use the conflict to consolidate power, and 'organically' radicalize people into generating more conflict...
Jews=communists.
It wasn't convincing the first time around.
Where in MadCasual's comment did you read "Jews=Communists"?
"Where in MadCasual’s comment did you read “Jews=Communists”?"
I'm just filling in the blanks. The comment is boiler plate fear of Judeo Bolshevism - hand wringing, scapegoating and demonization. The notion that Biden, Trump, Congress, the courts, the media, the military, and the corporate world are Marxists bent on setting us normal Americans against each other is ludicrous.
mtrueman
“Where in MadCasual’s comment did you read “Jews=Communists”?”
I’m just filling in the blanks.
It's revealing how much of the leftist worldview is simply invented from their own minds, that's the value of consistent propaganda. Consider this the next time they whine about people putting words in their mouths.
That would practically be the exact opposite of what I said. To say nothing of Marx and Engels personal feelings about Jews. There is no direct observation or even remotely truthful reflection of our world where “Jews=Communists” make sense. But, it’s mtrueman, the guy who brags about coming here and telling lies just to come here and tell lies.
"There is no direct observation or even remotely truthful reflection of our world where “Jews=Communists” make sense. "
No one said it makes sense. The point is it makes no sense, but so many willingly lap it up anyway. George Soros, case in point: a rich commie Jew who is behind all the dark machinations that are destroying America. You're right. It doesn't make sense and I'm not convinced.
Seems reasonable to me. If colleges gets special laws to their benefit, then they should have special requirements as well.
And no, the definition of anti-Semitism given doesn't seem particularly broad or inaccurate, unless you happen to be an anti-Semite who doesn't want to be called out on it.
How do you define Semite? If you can't adequately define Semite, then a bill banning anti-Semitism is an exercise in silliness.
"anti-Semitism" does not mean hatred of Semites. It was coined to give a scientific veneer to Jew hatred.
The IHRA gives a working definition of antisemitism for just this purpose.
Israel's supporters in America are increasingly limited to (1) fair-weather Republican allies and (2) old members of the liberal-libertarian mainstream.
it is not difficult to predict the consequences because old mainstreamers die off daily and Israel seems unlikely to survive without massive American support. Those younger Democrats will be calling the shots (removing the American skirts Israel hides behind) soon enough.
Being immoral right-wing belligerents and aligning with the losing end of the America culture war seems a direct route to existential failure.
"Being immoral right-wing belligerents and aligning with the losing end of the America culture war seems a direct route to existential failure."
That seems to be a sacrifice the Israeli leadership is willing to make. Perhaps by the time America goes down the tubes Israel will have found another sugar daddy. With God on their side, what could go wrong?
There will be a one state multicultural solution one day. The whole idea of a ethno nationalistic state based on 19th century central european notions of self-determination and myths from 2K years ago is bound to end as people change their own views with reality. American demographics are going to change, that is reality. Israel's secular "Jewish" masses will eventually understand an idea of "Jewish" state is not aligned to the reality in the area. Unless you are going to forcibly remove or exterminate the Palestinians, there will be one state....
In effect, there already is one state.
"It is easy to make fun of these protesters"
That's clearly the job of the media. We see it every day here at Reason where writers mock, downplay and misrepresent the student demonstrators. What's more significant is that the demonstrations have touched a nerve with the state, which doesn't feel inclined to make fun and feels threatened and fear instead, from Biden down to school administrations, and they are relying on violence to put a stop to them. Let's hope the students continue and inspire more to follow.
“”Let’s hope the students continue and inspire more to follow.”””
It will split the dems. Establishment dems are pro-Israel.
It’s the best thing to happen for republicans since dems started crying foul over their own sanctuary cities especially this year.
You want Trump? This is how you get Trump.
“You want Trump? This is how you get Trump.”
Will it make any difference? I trust Trump’s antiwar bona fides more than I do Biden’s. Not too much, but I think Trump’s antiwar stance is sincere if rather shallow. After almost 7 months of fighting, Biden has yet to speak with Hamas representatives. Not even a phone call. During his term Trump spoke and met with the leaders of Russia, China and North Korea. I can picture a meeting between Trump and battle hardened and scarred Hamas militants. Provided the Hamas representatives are suitably presentable and deferential, they might swing Trump over to their side. I can’t picture anything like that happening with Biden, can you?
Note: I wrote long ago that I don’t believe that neither Trump nor Biden will make it to November. They will be too old, too infirm and too unpopular.
The art of the deal?
What would Hama's side be? Clinton offered them more than Trump probably would and they turned Bill down.
Hamas does not recognize Israel existence and wants them removed. From the river to the sea. Trump isn't going to give them that.
"What would Hama’s side be?"
What indeed? When Trump met Chairman Kim of North Korea, their side was that the joint American/South Korean military exercises were an unnecessary provocation and asked they be stopped. Trump agreed and complied with their request. I can guess what Hamas might ask of Trump - official recognition, a normalized relationship, that sort of thing. Trump strikes me as more flexible than Biden on such matters.
"Clinton offered them more than Trump probably would and they turned Bill down."
Clinton was in no position to offer anything. And what the Palestinians (Fatah, not Hamas) wanted, Clinton couldn't deliver.
"Hamas does not recognize Israel existence and wants them removed. From the river to the sea. Trump isn’t going to give them that."
Israel looks like it will come out of this conflict severely weakened - militarily with her neighbors, and domestic politics. Hamas is already stronger and more influential. America's and the West's youngsters have swung decisively away from Israel. The old power equations will no longer apply and the new conversation will have to reflect those changes if policy is to have any relevance.
"From the river to the sea. Trump isn’t going to give them that."
That's a lot to ask for but a single secular state that stretches from the river to the sea and doesn't favor any religion, ethnicity or skin color over another is the solution I've long advocated. I've said it before, only half jokingly, the single state is the solution both sides oppose. So it makes the perfect compromise.
The only thing the Hamas citizens of Gaza want is the same thing Misek wants. The complete genocide of the Jewish people around the globe.
"The complete genocide of the Jewish people around the globe."
You can ease off on the hysteria. That's not going to happen.
Trump continues to grow in popularity, and there is no sign that his health is about to fail anytime soon.
I don't think he'll run.
How far does this go? Every wrong ever committed on every ethnic group or tribe on planet earth since the beginning of written history? Farenheit 451
Bottom line on this - - it’s just Socialists, it’s always been Socialists/Marxists. It’s ignorant of any democrat who owns anything to think that these people are just memes on right wing media or conspiracy theories (Jared Polis, a Jew, said that about AOC) Democrats knew and willingly aided in the emboldened Marxists coming after the west. Can’t stuff genies back into bottles.
Now climb out of your ignorant stupor and understand that these people do not believe in property ownership or loan interest or contract law or basically anything that free markets is built on.
"How far does this go?"
Ask the Jewish lobbyists. Aren't they behind the drive to criminalize criticism of Israel?
"Bottom line on this – – it’s just Socialists"
A fascist bottom line. Jews=communists.
Free markets are fascist
Lack of access to free markets (sanctions) is fascist
Real socialism has never been tried, right comrade?
"Free markets are fascist"
Free markets are imaginary. If someone tells you otherwise, you've found yourself a fascist. Ask whether Jews=communists if you need to make sure. (Just don't mention Israel.)
If. Free markets are imaginary
Then. Lack of access to free markets (sanctions) are imaginary
Whataryawhining about
"Lack of access to free markets (sanctions) are imaginary"
No, they are normal. So is taxation and the various prohibitions enforced by the government.
The guy playing the doctor in that Onion clip also played Satan in Your Pretty Face is Going to Hell. Awesome show.
Love how these press shots always show the young women in the hijab, peacefully but passionately protesting the oppression of the poor “Palestinians”.
Why aren’t they showing pics of Jihad Johnny with hate in his eyes and spit flying out of his mouth, yelling for the destruction of Israel and the US?
Pictures of women in hijab get the message across with more subtlety. The protestors are alien fanatics (hijab) who are not to be taken seriously (women). Does almost the same as your preferred hate-filled ranter, but with less emotion, less hysteria.
Germany has similar laws. They have a bureaucracy staffed mostly with non Jews who spend their days stamping out Jews who criticize Israel.
An excellent reason to vote out every member of the House who voted for this illiberal attack on free speech ... and maybe elect someone who will elect the new president in January (chosen from the top 3 vote getters). Gutting the 2-party system is becoming necessary in order to save the Constitution as we know it.
Obviously a dopey unconstitutional bill that feeds the DEI monster. Jews don’t need to be added to the DEI victim stage, they need real scholars to teach and question Marxist ideology and the status of the Islamic world. The bill distracts from the real need to fire the admissions staff and faculty hires, plus end or restrict tenure.
The line between protected speech and incitement to violence is almost always clear. Offensive and disturbing chants like “From the river to the sea” have varying interpretations and don’t necessarily qualify as incitement to violence. On the flip side, a Columbia student who said that “Zionists should die” implicitly called for violence against Jews. Wherever the line is not clear, we should remain on the side of free speech, which will help us determine where the line actually is and clarifying when it has been crossed.
Clearing up the differences between protected speech and unlawful conduct is imperative, since our government is keen to exploit antisemitism as grounds for increased censorship on college campuses, which would be a big blow for academic freedom. In just the last few years, we’ve seen how DHS (and other government agencies) played a large role in the suppression of dissent around Covid and the 2020 election. Now they’re capitalizing on pro-Hamas incidents at colleges and universities to bolster government influence over academia under the guise of combatting “disinformation.” It’s not difficult to imagine a future scenario where such restrictions on academic freedom may be used against students and professors over their Constitutionally-protected political positions.
Opposing antisemitism does not require us to get onboard with government-imposed censorship. Supporting free speech means defending the speech of those you hate, and knowing the difference between protected speech, civil disobedience, and abuse.
"“Zionists should die” implicitly called for violence against Jews."
Not really. The majority of Zionists in America are probably Christian. They believe, I shit you not, that support for Israel is required for the return of the Messiah, at which point, the Jews can all go to hell. And there are plenty of Jews, both secular and religious, American and Israeli, who oppose Zionism as immoral. Conflating Zionists with Jews is an error, just like the conflation of criticism of Israel with antisemitism. The fact is that any of these campus protests will have a significant number of Jews, whether participants or organizers, among them. It's very unlikely that they will identify as Zionists, and actually are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, rather than viewing them as human animals fit only for extermination.
This is beyond outrageous. The U.S. House thinks protesting Netanyahu's policies equals antisemitism? If so, then criticizing Biden's policies is anti-Angloism, and criticizing Idi Amin's brutal dictatorship was anti-Africanism. I'll bet even AIPAC knows the difference, but AIPAC owns Congress, therefore Congresspersons may never dare deny that "Israel is inerrant in all things, forever, amen."
Anti free speech is now bipartisan.
I have to give Glenn Greenwald credit for defending freedom of speech while he was cancelled from the left, called a white supremacy apologist, and for rightfully predicting it would used against the left.
I can find Greenwald hypocritical and ridiculous on his public safety violent felony views, as he sits in a gated community with armed security guards.
Soave's claim that protestors don't know that innocent people are being murdered in The Arb-Israeli War and therefore aren't justified in their protest has to be a new low for Zionist lies
Soave doesn't strike me as a deep thinker. His role here is to denigrate the protestors by mocking and belittling them. If there's a writer for Reason who takes a different tack, I haven't come across it yet.
The protesters are clowning themselves, you idiot.
Why don’t you take them some tampons and juice boxes? Protesting is like, sooo hard!
Tricky Vick is right. This nonsense will succeed in sending the pendulum back the other way towards common sense. Your little idiots temper tantrum is nearly over.
See you in November. Haha.
The state, the media and the universities fear these protestors. They must be doing something right.
No, it won’t; learn to read
Once again;
Education Department <- There's your problem.
All the way around. Donors, student loans, plagiarism, DIE, free speech, free association, Title IX, transgender female athletes, diversity studies degrees... Massie called it. We're paying dearly to keep a fermenting pile of shit from self-immolating when there's no real reason not to just stop doing so.
I'm pretty much a free speech absolutist, but this headline really bugs me, because the word *criticize* is doing a lot of heavy lifting.
When people talk about how it's okay to "criticize" Israel, just like every other country, they're usually being sort of disingenuous. "Criticisms" of other countries, say France, are typically like "the waiters in Paris can be somewhat rude" while "criticisms" of Israel are typically like "Israhell is a fascist Nazi apartheid country of Jesus killers and all the Jews there come from somewhere else and should be expelled Hitler was right anyone who supports Israel's continued existence is evil and should be made unwelcome everywhere they go."
When people are screaming "criticism" like that into the face of every visibly Jewish person they see, it's pretty easy to cross the line into harassment, at which point it is no longer really a first amendment issue.
"When people are screaming “criticism” like that into the face of every visibly Jewish person they see, it’s pretty easy to cross the line into harassment"
This is how I account for the strong presence of Jews among the supporters of the Palestinian cause. I was quite surprised if not shocked, back in Oct when thousands of Jews occupied the central station in New York to criticize Israel. Israel styles itself as a 'Jewish state' and their actions are done in the name of the Jewish people as a whole. That's why Jews who oppose those actions have the slogan: 'Not in our name.' If anyone has the right, nay, the duty to criticize Israel, it's the Jews who find Israel's actions immoral and repulsive and don't appreciate their faith being hijacked by fascist thugs in Tel Aviv.
trueman, pitching antisemitic propaganda 24/7/365.
because the word *criticize* is doing a lot of heavy lifting.
Do you actually think it's doing a lot of heavy lifting, as in Robby would be out shouting those things in Jews faces if he weren't covering for it by using the word 'criticize'?
Or are you projecting your notions of (false) criticism onto a neutral word?
Because Robby is absolutely historically guilty of hedging against and dog whistling about people's free speech rights, to be sure. I just haven't ever known him to do it specifically or particularly for or against Jews.
You are nowhere near a free speech absolutist.
Even suggesting ANY of what you claim is the OPPOSITE of even half-hearted support of speech.
Note: Screaming anything in anyone's face has ZERO to do with free speech. You can say what you want, but you can't ASSAULT people and call it speech.
The Antisemitism Awareness Act Will Make It Illegal To Criticize Israel on Campus
That is a MAJOR understatement. It would make suggesting Judaism may not be 100% of the truth illegal, regardless of location or context.
Here is the text of the bill:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/6090/text?s=1&r=3&q=%7B%22search%22%3A%22antisemitism+awareness%22%7D
It seems to have some problems.
In fact, they viewed the university administration's role as that of a parent, shielding them from painful speech.
Yes. Because that's what their parents did when they were growing up. I say they shouldn't. If we want people to respect free speech (and I certainly do), they need to grow up with the understanding that people (including themselves) do have the right to express their opinions and ideas. And that there is a clear distinction between physical violence, which isn't allowed, and speech, which is. Children will understand that, if they are taught it. College is kind of late to start.
Have you noticed Soave didn't bother to cite the actual bill he's writing about? He cites an NBC news article but doesn't quote from the actual bill. The legislation deals with discrimination, not speech.
Have a look:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/6090/text
That is completely true, and should be the most important point.
Nothing in this bill _criminalizes_ anything.
We can argue that tying funding to non-discrimination is attacking free expression, but that has always been part of Title VI. The bill very explicitly says "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to diminish or infringe upon any right protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States."
The bill does two things:
- Recognize that ethnic discrimination prohibited under Title VI does not become permitted if the ethnicity in question has a traditional religion. (Discrimination on the basis of any religion is not per se prohibited under Title VI)
- Gives a working definition for discrimination on the basis of Jewish ethnicity.
Ethnic discrimination is still not protected even if it can be justified on the basis of a scripture.