You know, or should, that your conduct is unethical and outrageous when it makes Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fl.) look good by comparison Gaetz voted against HR 690, as every member of the House should have since it is throbbingly unconstitutional on its face, no question, no argument, a flat out First Amendment violation. Gaetz told his followers on Twitter/X that he voted against the proposed legislation because it is a “ridiculous hate speech bill.”
“Antisemitism is wrong, but this legislation is written without regard for the Constitution, common sense, or even the common understanding of the meaning of words,” he wrote. Bingo. The bill, in weasel words remarkable even by recent Congressional standards, declares that “anti-Semitism” is a violation of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.), and embraces an expansive definition of the term “adopted on May 26, 2016, by the IHRA, of which the United States is a member, which definition has been adopted by the Department of State; and… includes the “[c]ontemporary examples of antisemitism” identified in the IHRA definition.”
The IHRA definition includes examples of pure speech, and I would expect any junior in high school to know that these cannot be criminalized:
Working definition of antisemitism :
“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations:
Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.
Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:
- 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.
Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries).
I bolded the most obviously unconstitutional “examples” above that are made illegal by the “Antisemitism Awareness Act.” That’s right: it’s every one of them.
The GOP majority is using the legislative process for virtue-signalling and grandstanding while showing disregard for individual rights and Constitutional protections. It’s an abuse of power and process, and anyone who voted for this monstrosity who doesn’t realize it defies the Bill of Rights is too ignorant to be in Congress.
I was amused to see that Rep. Jackson Lee, among the most prominent Dunning-Kruger sufferers in the House, was one of the Democrats sponsoring the bill, along with Rep. Stefanik, who knows better and should be ashamed of herself.
All 320 House members who voted “yes” should. They disgrace the Legislative Branch.
Ethics Alarms 
Psalm 146, Psalm 146, Psalm 146…
Why does the Stupid Party keep earning its moniker? At least we can take some comfort in the fact that about 100 Democrats also voted for this. It is bipartisan unconstitutionality. Wait, is that comfort, or is it just another data point that suggests that everything is power politics, and the Bill of Rights is a dead letter?
On the one hand, I can understand wanting to make a strong condemnation of anti-Semitism. On the other, I despair at the lack of any ability to register nuance. Yes, hateful ideas and thoughts and speech are wrong. But some wrong things have to be protected under the law in order to preserve the right things. When it comes to anti-Semitism, I will condemn it wholeheartedly. But I will also defend the right to espouse those views. Ideas like that have to be brought into the daylight and vigorously defeated through logic and reason. Sending them to the shadows doesn’t make them die, and often gives them life as there must be something there if the officials banning it can’t muster an actual defense.
I’ve said before, we get the rulers we deserve. I can’t say any differently with our current Congress.
All true. Still, truly depressing and disheartening.
“I’ve said before, we get the rulers we deserve. I can’t say any differently with our current Congress.”
Agreed.
“The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.” ~ Psalm 12:8
Ryan, this is absolutely correct.
Not sure the bill does anything other than remind the president of anti discrimination laws.
The “might give rise to” in paragraph 3 does all the heavy lifting here.
It maybe unethical since all it is is a meaningless reminder to a president who isn’t going to project Jewish minority from pro terrorist mobs. But I don’t see anything in it against free speech.
Jeez, MW! The bill literally cites the civil rights statute and says that act meeting that definition of antisemitism is a violation of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. No, they are not. They cannot be. This is a hate speech law.
Maybe this is indicative of my mind getting stuck in a rut, but this is the result of the mantra that the Courts determine what is unconstitutional.
Bush 42 did this most explicitly when he signed a bill, saying that he thought it violated the constitution but would leave it to the Courts to decide.
No, No, NO, NOOOO!!!!!!!!!
It is the obligation of every Article I, Article II, and Article III agent to uphold the Constitution so that only the most difficult cases make it to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court should never ever have to decide the question of whether a law making Roman Catholicism the official religion of the United States is constitutional. That question should never get out of the Legislature; no, it should never make it out of committee.
Sadly, the Antisemitism Awareness Act made it out of committee.
(And may God have mercy on their souls!)
Jut
Not stuck. Exactly right.
Jack,
Thanks so much for posting this. My representative voted “Yea” on this bill, so are you alright with me including a link to this piece in my email to him?
Of course. I’m determined to get the readership of Ethics Alarms into double figures…..
Thanks! Will do…
I was with you up to the assertion that Rep. Stefanik “knows better.” That damned near made coffee come out my nose. The average person wouldn’t know who she is were it not for her petulant first-amendment-be-damned virtue signaling in that hearing a few months ago. This is absolutely in character for her.
By the way, I do recommend the FIRE webinar that aired Monday and is now online.
I second that. I’ve watched it.
Oh, she does know better, and I think that makes voting for such crap worse. It’s the Hanlon’s Razor choice: stupid, or malicious? She’s not stupid.
Also, any college president who couldn’t respond to her hostile witness direct examination better than those three did get no sympathy from me. The Rep. exposed them as the lazy and slogan-mouthing hypocrites they are. How hard is it to say “We shouldn’t allow demonstrations that attack the race, religion, ethnicity or gender of students. To the extent that we have done that, we were wrong and will have to do better”?
By the way…looking at the voting results, Marjorie Taylor Greene voted with Matt Gaetz…and both voted with Maxine Waters.
That be some strange – though correct in this case – bedfellows.
And in many cases I’m sure, examples of doing the right thing for unethical reasons.
Doesn’t anyone remember Skokie? Maybe the new, improved ACLU has had the case and its facts somehow obliterated from public consciousness?
Or was Skokie taken just so they could point to that one time they defended someone they disagreed with? The fact that you have to go back almost 50 years to find a case where the ACLU didn’t take the knee-jerk leftist position says a lot.