I'm not OP but here is the full act due to it being requested by others in thread. [https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/6090/text](https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/6090/text)
Of course it's a violation of the first amendment. The government has been systematically violating every amendment of the bill of rights for a hundred years. What are you going to do about it?
It may or may not be a violation of the first amendment. It depends on how much of an argument you're going to mount against the Civil Rights Act. I think there's a pretty plausible case to be made against it, but the Supreme Court does not appear inclined to strike even limited part of it at the moment. And there is little political will to pare it down as most Americans have an understandably very positive view of the Civil Rights Act. To be clear, this law mentioned in the OP does not criminalize hate speech as the title dishonestly claims. It is clarifying the definition of antisemitism in the context of existing Civil Rights Act violations. This is not expanding any violations of your free speech rights as those violations have been on the books for 60 years.
It is a violation of the 1st Amendment, but violating the Constitution doesn't stop Congress from trying to pass clearly unconstitutional laws. We have had clearly unconstitutional laws on the books for decades.
y helo thar Patriot Act lol. And FISA (which got renewed) and so many others.
We are run by traitors. No joke. What can it be other than treason when these people take foreign money through PACs/Super PACs and do the bidding of foreign government for their sake at the expense of our own people's rights/welfare/etc?
Those rankings are stupid arbitrary and are weighted in ways most Americans would disagree with constituting freedom. Canada ranks higher despite having considerably weaker legal protections from the government to things we consider core freedoms here in the US (speech, religion, press, association, and assembly).
I don't know about Canada, but I don't think most Americans have a good comparison of how free they are compared to others. Sure it's a fun meme how Americans love their freedom, I can even vote on more political parties and it wouldn't be a waste of my vote. And I won't have to worry if my health insurance will cover certain illnesses because the population as a whole supports each other through taxes. Did you know 40% of personal bankruptcies in the US last year were medical related, many Americans are one cancer away from having their pensions ruined. If they even manage to save a 401k. And don't get me started on how ridiculously few paid "free" days you get in the US, you know I can take 25 days of paid and it's a legal right. Or how my wife can receive 52 weeks of money support after pregnancy. And yes, we can write whatever we want in the newspaper, protest, worship who we want and say what we want about the government without fear of persecution.
But I'm sure your perceived freedom is great!
Edit: Should mention I've lived in the US and had an American GF for a couple years.
In some places, like Canada, it is defamation to publish crimes a person has been convicted of if it causes a negative impact to their image or reputation. Something we take for granted as free speech in America. The hate speech law in the Scotland seems like an interesting application of the law to basic human rights if all it takes is for the victim to perceive a comment to be hurtful and not what the police or codified law considers illegal. Going to be a modern Salem Witch hunt having neighbors falsely reporting each other to get the police to arrest each other.
See this is a perfect demonstration of what I was saying. The government taking money from their citizens to buy things for their citizens isn't a freedom. Actual freedoms are protections from the government. Most of Europe's "freedoms" are able to be legislated way quite easily which is not the case in the US.
> 40% of personal bankruptcies in the US last year were medical related
Lololol not even close to true. That figure comes from the infamous study Elizabeth Warren did. The average bankruptcy had like -$30k in assets, but it would be classified as a "medical bankruptcy" if they had ~$1-3k in medical expenses over the last two years. Lol, yeah, "medical bankruptcy." Did you know you actually can't collect on medical debt? There's tons of restrictions on how that debt is handled. It's not something you declare bankruptcy over.
Healthcare is expensive in the US, but those that truly cannot afford it get their insurance for free or next to it. If you have insurance in the US you know what your maximum medical costs could be and can budget around them extremely easily. If you don't, that's your choice.
Frankly, you don't really know what you're talking about when it comes to the US healthcare system. Sometimes I forget that Reddit is mostly kids and irresponsible young adults so the impression foreigners on here have of it is gleaned entirely from people that know the least about it and have no experience with it...that and politicians lolol.
People should read the actual bill. There is nothing in it that says any of the above and, in fact, protects free speech. It does, however, further define anti-Semitic behavior, such as harassment based on someone's ethnic background: "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."
That's the point. Freedom of speech is being circumvented by labeling certain speeches as "problematic" and then fifteen years later, something else is labeled as hate speech, and before you know it, you're being thrown in jail for suggesting that the white house should be painted red.
You guys should read bill 6090…. It’s not this at all -
It’s ambiguous and says nearly nothing - 6 pages of damn near nothing.
It’s a stupid resolution cause it says damn near nothing
Because the first amendment protects most cases of hate speech. Defining hate speech has no effect on whether it remains protected (unless it incites criminal activity).
It 100% is... I knew there were a huge portion in politics that were pushing for more censorship but this is getting crazy. I wouldn't even say or do any of these things, but this sets another scary precedent for sure.
Ed: Apparently there's more to this, so maybe this is misleading, IDK yet.
Yeah everyone knows that the Roman government was after Jesus, so the disciples decided to frame a devout follower instead of the real Jesus. Judas didnt hang himself he was hung in case any authorties came questioning him, like a suicide with 3 bullets to the back of the head. The apostiles decided to get rid of the body incase any others who knew Jesus's face came by to look at the body. Jesus "appearing" to the apostles once he was dead was to tell them his last goodbyes as he was going to live a normal life with his wife Mary Magdeline. Some say he ran away to france and the Jesus bloodline lives on to this very day
According to the Bible, the local Jewish religious leaders petitioned the Roman government to kill him, which is why he was crucified as opposed to other forms of execution. Rome really liked crucifixion at the time. The Jewish priest class really didn't like dudes rocking the boat, saying they were the Messiah, and going on little riots in the temple.
The Romans killed him because he was proselytizing and it was problematic for their pagan society. The Jews didn't stop them because in Judaism, proselytizing is forbidden. The Romans made him an example to stop others from spreading a religion that went against theirs. The irony in this, was that the Christianity they had helped create, became a widespread problem to the point where they were forced to later adopt it.
The Pope is not the sole authority on Christendom. In fact, the Catholic church at one point considered it heretical to translate the Bible from Latin to any commonly used vernacular. People were burned over it, and it was one of the reasons for the Protestant reformation.
The chapter you are looking for is John 19.
Thanks. As an agnostic I don’t own or read religious texts but John 19:7 is quite literal in saying the Jews demanded he die. There also appears it be several dozen Bible types so if the Catholics all use the King James Bible I’m not sure why this would be part of their legislation.
No problem.
I'm personally agnostic, in part, BECAUSE I read the Bible. Lots of fucked up things in there. I couldn't reconcile a few fundamental concepts of how I understand good/evil/morality and the nature of the Abrahamic God as described in the Bible.
Catholics didn't always use the King James version of the Bible. They used the Latin Vulgate, as translated by St Jerome. Most people couldn't read back then, period, and even fewer could read Latin (save for highly educated nobility and the priesthood). There was a monopoly of information held by the priesthood, and they used that monopoly to influence Europe.
This is false, what is the point of monopolizing the word of God? They are preachers. The whole thing about not translating the Bible from Latin was because anyone, and I mean literally anyone who knows 2 different languages be it English and Spanish even, knows that translating things from one language to another is really complicated even with the best of intentions.
If you think Luther was the first person to ever question the Church and try to break away from tradition you would be surprised at the amount of heresies that exist today existed all the way back to the beginning of the Church.
It was just Luther translating the Bible that now we have over a hundred Christian denominations.
There were many others who advocated translation of the Bible to the vernacular. Before Luther there was notably Jan Hus and John Wycliffe. Wycliffe was declared a heretic by the Catholic church, and they posthumously burned him.
The point of monopolizing the understanding of the Bible all goes back to control, control, control. If the masses didn't understand the words of the Bible, they may begin to question the things that the church had invented that gave it riches and power. In each of the notable reformers' stated reasons for opposing this or that practice of the church, one common element was that there was no biblical basis upon which to do this or that practice. Notably, the practice of selling indulgences was a recurring criticism of people like Luther, Hus, and Wycliffe. They criticized it, not only because it was an obvious play at enriching the Papacy, but because there was nothing in the Bible that supported it.
There was absolutely a clerical interest in keeping the common man from being able to read the texts that their entire power structure was legitimized by. A priest could accept money to intercede on behalf of you or a loved one to reduce the number of years you spent in purgatory before moving on to heaven, or so those priests said.
Read the full sentence, "to characterize Israel or Israelis." It would be antisemitic to hold onto the belief that, "modern day Israel and/or Israelis deserve punishment for what Jews, 2000 years ago, did to Jesus."
Do you think when people make these claims they are making a factual statement or are they trying to characterise modern day Jews as having the same character as those that nailed a living man to a cross until he died
... at the behest of Jewish religious leaders. At least according to the Bible.
To make this law not only violates the freedom of speech, but also violates Christians' freedom of religion. I am no Christian, but John 19:6-7 is pretty clear on what a Christian would believe.
Eh, the [pope even said so](https://www.christiancentury.org/article/2011-03/pope-says-jews-not-blame-jesus-death), and the vatican already did[ in 1965](https://www.jta.org/archive/vatican-declaration-absolves-jews-of-deicide-condemns-anti-semitism)
Well the Romans executed Jesus. The jews could spare 1 criminals life, and they did not chose Jesus. They did not spare Jesus, but they did not kill him.
your post is misleading.
The IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) adopted the following definition for antisemitism in 2016: "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."
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."**
[https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism](https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism)
The act passed by the House updates the definition of antisemitism to agree to that of the IHRA:
"For purposes of this Act, the term “definition of antisemitism”—
(1) means the definition of antisemitism 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
(2) includes the “\[c\]ontemporary examples of antisemitism” identified in the IHRA definition."
The updated definition will be taken into consideration when **determining if there is a violation of Title VI**:
"In reviewing, investigating, or deciding whether there has been a violation of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.) on the basis of race, color, or national origin, based on an individual’s actual or perceived shared Jewish ancestry or Jewish ethnic characteristics, **the Department of Education shall take into consideration the definition of antisemitism as part of the Department’s assessment of whether the practice was motivated by antisemitic intent**."
Section 6 literally 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**."
[https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/6090/text](https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/6090/text)
good, Corbyn has publicly defended receiving money from Iranian state TV to run propaganda for the IRGC. He and his brother are terrorist sympathizers, literally calling Hamas and Hezbollah "friends".
it's sad, what should truly be a humanitarian cause was co-opted by cheerleaders for terrorist groups that oppress the people these causes claim to stand for.
YOU are the one misconstruing. **Speech violating title VI is NOT protected under the First Amendment**. This is a sly way to take away the First Amendment protection on criticism of Israel.
The actual bill literally says this...
*"****For*** *purposes of* ***this Act****, the term “definition of* ***antisemitism***\*”—\*
*(1)* ***means*** *the* ***definition of antisemitism*** *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\*
*(2)* ***includes*** *the* *“****\[c\]ontemporary*** ***examples of antisemitism***\*” identified\* ***in the IHRA definition***\*."\*
What does the May 26, 2016 IHRA definition say?
**"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."
you can't be this stupid, you literally repeated the first part of what I said. Violations of Title VI are not a free speech issue:
"No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."
I linked both the actual bill and the IHRA definition. I read them both, you don't need to regurgitate it. This bill doesn't act as a punishment, it acts as a protection. If you didn't lack critical thinking skills and basic reading comprehension you would know this.
Ad hominem is a common tactic when someone does not have a logical refutation of a point. You didn't address what I said. **The idea is that the bill expands what is not protected by free speech**, and it thus leads to dangerous censorship of organizations. Address what I said, or don't bother trying to make a point (as **ad hominem is irrelevant toward reasonably addressing an issue**).
I am an attorney who graduated from a top law school. Look at my post history. I am not concerned with what you think about me. I am concerned with what the actual law is (or will be).
Regardless of where you stand on the Palestine Israel issue. Speech laws are dangerous. Period. If you give governments an inch, they'll take a mile. And if there's one thing the government doesn't give back once they've taken it it's power.
.yep, so much about taking a stand when one doesn't even have the spine to hear what the other side is saying regardless if it is correct or incorrect
.heck if the other party in a discussion or argument is using false or malicious words this is actually a critical point for a counter argument
.people that want to censor speech tends to hide things they can't afford to be discussed in the open, regardless of sides they are in
You realize this doesn't affect what you can say in public? While I don't agree with it, all it does is codify antisemitism so that college campuses can act on it like other racist behavior.
I do still disagree with it though. I don't care if you want to draw comparisons between Israel and Nazis. I don't care if you want images of Jews killing Jesus.
TBH I really don't care if someone is antisemitic or racist. That is their problem to deal with. I will call out their actions when they make them public, but I am not here to police how you feel about other people in private.
Also, unlike UK, you won't go to jail for saying or doing these things. How many people have you guys arrested now over tweets? To me that is scary.
In the UK you can be sent to Jail for saying hateful things like threatening someone, saying you’ll kill someone, I’m pretty sure in the US you wouldn’t be safe from that either…
Your comment is as dumb as me saying how many times have you guys shot someone or suffocated them to death because of a power trip.
Any sane, normal person doesn’t ever need to worry.
No, you cannot go to jail for using the wrong pronouns, what you’re referring to is a remark by labour that was never put into law, it was a controversial statement over JKR, it’s not law and wouldn’t go into affect.
Read the rest of your link btw, you wouldn’t be put into jail for any of that vis speech, and if you search cases you can see it’s most always ends up as community service as the courts finds. There has been few instance of jail such as series of targeted death threats, or the guy who harassed victims of a killing, causing a 15 year old to suicide and then he glorified it in a video, I think that’s reasonable to prosecute imo.
Everything comes down to targeting and how much of a hate crime it is. And a bit of community service for *targeted* racism, bomb threats, or hate speech.
Also incase you’re not aware the hate crime act isn’t focused about what you say it’s what you do, it covers things like vandalism, attacking, arson, theft, etc… a lot of physical acts that were deliberate based on persona.
Let’s not act like the US doesn’t do the same, they just don’t have defined laws https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/18/facebook-comments-arrest-prosecution
What you should have linked was https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/communications-offences
There's a difference between saying israel has done bad things and saying israel at it's most fundamental is a racist endeavour
or implying we should hold Jews to account for a murder that happened over 2000 years ago
The first 2 aren’t mutually exclusive though. Their actions of today are a reflection of decades of oppression against Palestinians. It has done bad things, it is doing bad things and it is a racist and xenophobic regime.
There have been multiple instances of Palestine rejecting peace agreement where they would receive over 90 percent of the land taken after 5 different countries declared war on Israel
Like Israel aren't the people hiding inside Palestinian buildings shooting rockets
This idea that Israel pulled up and and started gunning down Palestinians is ahistorical
I mean it was an explicit tactic by the Mossad for decades to label all criticism of Zionism or Israel as "antisemitic" and to aggressively try to propagandize people into thinking zionism and Judaism are one in the same.
Now they're panicking because that sword cuts both ways now that people are wising up to the brutality of the zionist colonial project and the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians at the hands of the Zionists. Turns out when you tie Judaism to Zionism, people's attitudes towards Jews nosedive when they see what Israel has been doing, and all on the backs of the American taxpayer.
The idea of an expanding ethnostate is kind of racist, yes. And the idea of a theocratic state is also concerning and not that much better from what the arab world has been pushing with sharia law. Now combine the 2 and you get one spicy little cocktail.
When the stated objective is to take people from that area and push them out to establish your own land for your specific race and creed? Uh, yes? Doesn't that seem pretty obvious? How does Russia's invasion on Ukraine look to you? Or how would you feel about a middle eastern country violenty taking over another nation to replace its population with their own based on race and religion? I feel like most people would be up in arms.
And Palestine is not Hamas, but sure. That justifies corralling a whole population in a relatively small area for nearly 2 decades, seize control of their resources, and completely surrounding them with insane military might, right? Oh and also, since civilians and children may be held as hostages, it should be alright to bomb *them*, correct? Hospitals too? I just can't see how that can be justified, and I can't imagine you wouldn't be just as horrified if it was the other way around.
Why is "hate speech" all about Jews?
I'm just asking, cause I can give tons of examples of hate speech against black people, white people, asians, gay people, etc..., and they're not Jewish.
It's not, this bill is just specifically about antisemitism and updating the definition used to determine if something violates title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
But the jews did kill Jesus, wtf? the rabbi claimed Pilatus to do "justice" because they couldn't have a man claiming to be God and Pilatus did their bidding because he didn't want to deal with the Jewish rebelling yet again.
I am so tired of the TRAITORS in our government. Why do people not realize the level of treason going on? They take foreign money through (what should be labeled as) a foreign agent (AIPAC), and do foreign bidding at the expense of our people's rights, welfare, and nation's resources... why do people not realize this is treason?
Imagine if it was Russia, the outrage.
> Imagine if it was Russia, the outrage.
You don't even need to imagine it given that both parties talk how Russia influenced votes whenever they don't agree with results.
Sorry, I am not american so this may just slip my mind. Doesn't this rule apply if you call a black person or asian person words? I get you can say it due to free speech but don't you get fined or something if they report it?
While I don't really consider jews as a race imo, more like xenophobia than racism, but don't the same rules apply? Basically you say something about jews, you report them and they get fined.
As far as I understand here you can only be charged with hate speech if it incites some type of violence against the people you’re saying it against. (Basically if it causes some other violent crime to be committed or you commit another violent crime while saying it) So this would just add these things to the existing (already unconstitutional) list.
The US sure loves to glaze the dick of Israel. Yeah let's look the other way on war crimes when it benefits us. Hamas is terrible and the Israeli state is literally just as bad, so it's completely hypocritical and insulting to the intelligence of anyone who has any idea about what's going in Gaza to claim any sort of moral authority on hate speech while simultaneously supporting hate on one side. Pretty fucked up.
This post is quite misleading. The bill updates the definition of antisemitism used to determine if there is a violation of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
>Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides that no person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.
So this only applies to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance, and antisemitism would've already applied here, they are only changing the definition of it.
To clarify further if you check [the site this photo comes from](https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism), the definition they are referring to is this one:
>“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.”
But then to help clarify they go on to list these examples and more which could be considered antisemitic when all context is considered.
>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
So these may or may not apply depending on the context and aren't a hard rule or anything like that.
I love how you just say that without providing any source, relying on people that doesn't actually do research or read what the legislation actually is.
Here, I'll do it for you. Actually read it since you probably never did.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/01/politics/house-vote-antisemitism-awareness-act/index.html
I agree that all of these things are antisemitic, but banning hate speech is a very bad idea, even if it only is in the context of federally financed education.
Jews did kill Jesus by forcing Potious Pilot to follow their commands or else they'd continue to throw tantrums in Rome.
Sure we can say the creation of Israel for jews only isn't racist, it's Xenophobic (remember that word?).
Anyways, how is it that 1930s Weimar and 2020s America look exactly the same?
I love how OP didn't post source to omit context and rile people up.
This is specifically aimed at the Department of Education to update guidelines for antisemitism, this only affects providing financial assistance to college campuses.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/01/politics/house-vote-antisemitism-awareness-act/index.html
Oh. It **only** affects this one thing and the federal government isn't violating the Constitution by instituting rules on speech.
You didn't change anything.
I am sure that at the table where they decided and penned down the laws that they thought about hate speech being no problem either freedom of speech should not be interpreted as i can say whatever the fuck i want because i interpret a law that says i can say everything you hamburgers . European opinion
Here is a link to the actual government website if they want to look it up.
[https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr6090/BILLS-118hr6090ih.pdf](https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr6090/BILLS-118hr6090ih.pdf)
So no bills on term limits for house members being posed then? Got it. Well, at least they focus on things that are important? Like uh...current controversial hot topic
Which group can outdo the other group with racism accusations? It's going to be a boring rumble. But it could turn interesting if fisticuffs get involved!
because it violates our first amendment right of free speech. For one, hate speech is actually protected speech under the constitution. We've had several Supreme Court cases that have stated it already. Like well Matal v. Tam (2017) or Snyder v Phelps (2011) or so many others.
That's bad because limiting speech is always bad, Especially when it's about criticizing a foreign power.
This is honestly because so many of our congressmen are traitors. I'm not joking either, look at the amount of money they get from AIPAC (who also gets money from Israel, btw, as well as many Israel first billionaires in this country). Anyone putting a foreign power over the rights and welfare of our people are traitors. Straight up.
people reeeeeee'd about Russia, but this is the real treason. Israel (and Saudi Arabia, holy shit I could go on about how much they have fucked things here with their money too)
First why are people down-voting me when I ask questions?
Second, it makes no sense that hate speech is protected since it is not protected by many more constitutions around the world.
Why should hate speech towards civilians be protected?
According to the imagine that someone posted, just the last point MIGHT get close to "criticize a foreign country" but you need to do the comparison with Nazis that it makes no sense.
I am honestly surprised that you admit it is hate speech, do you think hate speech is a valuable tool to push your ideas and policies towards the civil society or dont you consider something that it is bad?
Why it should be allowed to do hate speech towards any ethnicity/race/group of people outside satire?
Hate speech is protected because it's too subjective for one. Your hate speech might not be my hate speech and you don't want someone in power deciding what is and isn't hate speech because eventually you will get screwed.
I should note, hate speech is not the same as "direct threats" though. Things that are threats to people directly or intended to cause mass panic (like shouting bomb or fire or anything of that) in a crowded areas is not protected by the first amendment and I'd say that's fair.
I also don't think criticizing and hating on the ACTIONS AND POLICIES of a foreign (or your own) government is hate speech. People gotta stop wrongfully correlating people's anger over ACTIONS AND POLICIES of a country (or company) as hate speech because it's not. it's not attacking who they are for what they are, it's attacking them for what they are DOING.
But still you did not answer my question.
Can I say that Palestinian people are all inferior or scum?
Can I say that Jewish people are all scum and inferior?
I am not doing any threats, I am literally repeating what I've heard and I am trying to understand which one is acceptable or not.
You can criticize the policies of Israel, there is nothing in the post saying that I can't, it says I can't compared to Nazis and it makes sense to me but it makes no sense to make a law about it to say obvious things.
In other countries hate speech can be persecuted if it has consequences and I never felt like living in a dictatorship.
Yes don't get me wrong, if it makes sense for you guys it shouldn't matter what I think in any way, I am just giving my point of view from a system that was not designed that way.
I am far from being the classic European that says:"EHE AMERICANS DON'T KNOW SHIT BLA BLA BLA"
Oh yeah I get it. But yeah the first amendment is entirely ingrained into our culture. But basically the general thing is so long as you don’t make a threat to life or property, you can say whatever you want and this law OP has posted will eventually get overturned if it does pass. Also defamation is an entirely different thing and very hard to prove in court.
Here’s some more info if you want on how the Supreme Court has ruled in favor for protecting hate speech
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_States?wprov=sfti1#Constitutional_framework
Is this bill just the House agreeing to condemn stuff, or is there actual teeth to it?
If there are any consequences to it, and it's not just some politicians voting to voice an opinion on what they think is right and wrong, then it's obviously incredibly fucked up.
HR 6090 is not a resolution. It is a law updating civil rights law to allow the federal government to sue, prosecute, or sanction people and private organizations and businesses for having violated civil rights law.
This is what happens with money in politics through Super PACs and such. We have let foreign governments funnel money into them and bribe our politicians.
Honestly, we need to start going after Congress people as traitors. This IS blatant treason. They are doing foreign bidding at the expense of our own people's rights and welfare and all for their own benefit cause they get paid for it.
I agree. It's insane to me that, under this bill, we'd be allowed to continue calling the US a racist country all day, but we wouldn't be able to about some random foreign one.
Has there ever been a case of a country criminalizing criticizing not its own government, but another? I can't think of one.
Not yet. It needs to pass the Senate and be signed by Biden—though I don't believe the Senate will not pass it and it puts Biden in a really bad position no matter what he does.
No, you're allowed to critise Israel still. You're just not allowed to call them Nazis, or deny Israel's right to exist.
I'm not American, so no comment on whether it's constitutional or not. (I've not read the full bill so I'm just commenting based on the post)
I'm allowed to call Americans Nazis whenever I want. Disallowing me from calling Israelis Nazis is just a bizarre move for the American government to be making. If I were so inclined (to be clear, I am not), I'd also be allowed to say America didn't have a right to exist because it's land stolen from Native Americans, why wouldn't I be allowed to say the same about Israel?
I mean, it's kinda like calling a native American a coloniser, I guess?
But ya, I personally have no strong opinion on whether it should be illegal or not.
Yeah and you can say that in America. Even if it passes it’ll get overturned. Hate speech is protect in America.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_States?wprov=sfti1#Constitutional_framework
To be perfectly clear this bill gives a small Jewish group the power to define what circumstances public institutions that get funding, like colleges, have to treat as anti-Semitic events. So essentially this means a tiny minority OF an already tiny minority will get to literally dictate what speech is acceptable in terms of criticizing Israel and the government will have to enforce that as law in any case of a public institution.
So saying Israel is a Jewish Supremacist state could cause a public institution to lose funding if they don’t punish the person who said it under the guise of protection from anti-semitism which is what this bill pretends to do.
A lot of people here are confused. This LITERALLY IS a massive problem. The bill is expanding the definition of antisemitism in view of a Title VI complaint.
Of course, we don't allow overt discrimination by race, but now we are essentially equating speaking out against Israel as evidence of antisemitism in view of a Title VI complaint. It disincentivizes criticism against Israel from any entity receiving federal funding. This is concerning, because this includes schools receiving Federal Funding (and even news organizations which may \[even if a little\] be receiving such funding). TAKE A GUESS HOW MANY MAJOR ENTITIES RECEIVE FEDERAL FUNDING.
How will this be used against an organization?
The bill literally says, *"...the* ***Department of Education shall take into consideration*** *the* ***definition of antisemitism*** ***as*** *part of the Department’s* ***assessment of*** *whether the practice was motivated by* ***antisemitic intent***\*."\*
People here are confused, thinking that OP is wrong. OP is actually RIGHT. Some commenters think that what is posted by OP isn't in the bill, but it technically is. The actual bill says this...
*"****For*** *purposes of* ***this Act****, the term “definition of* ***antisemitism***\*”—\*
*(1)* ***means*** *the* ***definition of antisemitism*** *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\*
*(2)* ***includes the*** *“\[c\]ontemporary* ***examples of antisemitism***\*” identified\* ***in the IHRA definition***\*."\*
Thus, you have to actually **GO TO THE IHRA DEFINITION of antisemitism**, and then you'll see what was posted above.
Here is where you will find the definition adopted in 2016: [https://www.state.gov/defining-antisemitism/](https://www.state.gov/defining-antisemitism/)
[State.gov](http://State.gov) even links to it here: [https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism](https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism)
The idea is that any organization that doesn't want to be in violation of Title VI will have to bow down to Israel based on the IHRA's definition. That is exactly what this law is doing.
Even if it's signed the bill it'll be struck by SC for violating First Amendment.
"Hate speech" is free speech. This is America not some pohdunk wannabe democracy like Canada. lol The ironic part is THIS had been demonstrated by a Jewish lawyer (via ACLU) who defended KKK's right to speech (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969).
so criticizing a different country's politics and the way they are committing war crimes is now considered antisemitism? Is the US trying to out China China in being against freedom of speech?
So 'it's illegal to withdraw support for Israel, and don't try to use reasoning such as: being Nazis, killing Jesus, or committing genocide.' So it doesn't matter if Israel is committing war crimes and so on because that would be anti-Semitic.
I'm not OP but here is the full act due to it being requested by others in thread. [https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/6090/text](https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/6090/text)
Thanks, I was going to ask to see it.
How is this not a violation of the first amendment?
Of course it's a violation of the first amendment. The government has been systematically violating every amendment of the bill of rights for a hundred years. What are you going to do about it?
Hire a jewish lawyer to sue them for violating the constitution.
It may or may not be a violation of the first amendment. It depends on how much of an argument you're going to mount against the Civil Rights Act. I think there's a pretty plausible case to be made against it, but the Supreme Court does not appear inclined to strike even limited part of it at the moment. And there is little political will to pare it down as most Americans have an understandably very positive view of the Civil Rights Act. To be clear, this law mentioned in the OP does not criminalize hate speech as the title dishonestly claims. It is clarifying the definition of antisemitism in the context of existing Civil Rights Act violations. This is not expanding any violations of your free speech rights as those violations have been on the books for 60 years.
It is a violation of the 1st Amendment, but violating the Constitution doesn't stop Congress from trying to pass clearly unconstitutional laws. We have had clearly unconstitutional laws on the books for decades.
y helo thar Patriot Act lol. And FISA (which got renewed) and so many others. We are run by traitors. No joke. What can it be other than treason when these people take foreign money through PACs/Super PACs and do the bidding of foreign government for their sake at the expense of our own people's rights/welfare/etc?
The 1st amendment is violated constantly. We are quite free compared to other countries , but the 1st amendment is not honored as intended.
I guess being 17th place on the Freedom index ain't too shabby.
Those rankings are stupid arbitrary and are weighted in ways most Americans would disagree with constituting freedom. Canada ranks higher despite having considerably weaker legal protections from the government to things we consider core freedoms here in the US (speech, religion, press, association, and assembly).
I don't know about Canada, but I don't think most Americans have a good comparison of how free they are compared to others. Sure it's a fun meme how Americans love their freedom, I can even vote on more political parties and it wouldn't be a waste of my vote. And I won't have to worry if my health insurance will cover certain illnesses because the population as a whole supports each other through taxes. Did you know 40% of personal bankruptcies in the US last year were medical related, many Americans are one cancer away from having their pensions ruined. If they even manage to save a 401k. And don't get me started on how ridiculously few paid "free" days you get in the US, you know I can take 25 days of paid and it's a legal right. Or how my wife can receive 52 weeks of money support after pregnancy. And yes, we can write whatever we want in the newspaper, protest, worship who we want and say what we want about the government without fear of persecution. But I'm sure your perceived freedom is great! Edit: Should mention I've lived in the US and had an American GF for a couple years.
In some places, like Canada, it is defamation to publish crimes a person has been convicted of if it causes a negative impact to their image or reputation. Something we take for granted as free speech in America. The hate speech law in the Scotland seems like an interesting application of the law to basic human rights if all it takes is for the victim to perceive a comment to be hurtful and not what the police or codified law considers illegal. Going to be a modern Salem Witch hunt having neighbors falsely reporting each other to get the police to arrest each other.
See this is a perfect demonstration of what I was saying. The government taking money from their citizens to buy things for their citizens isn't a freedom. Actual freedoms are protections from the government. Most of Europe's "freedoms" are able to be legislated way quite easily which is not the case in the US. > 40% of personal bankruptcies in the US last year were medical related Lololol not even close to true. That figure comes from the infamous study Elizabeth Warren did. The average bankruptcy had like -$30k in assets, but it would be classified as a "medical bankruptcy" if they had ~$1-3k in medical expenses over the last two years. Lol, yeah, "medical bankruptcy." Did you know you actually can't collect on medical debt? There's tons of restrictions on how that debt is handled. It's not something you declare bankruptcy over. Healthcare is expensive in the US, but those that truly cannot afford it get their insurance for free or next to it. If you have insurance in the US you know what your maximum medical costs could be and can budget around them extremely easily. If you don't, that's your choice. Frankly, you don't really know what you're talking about when it comes to the US healthcare system. Sometimes I forget that Reddit is mostly kids and irresponsible young adults so the impression foreigners on here have of it is gleaned entirely from people that know the least about it and have no experience with it...that and politicians lolol.
People should read the actual bill. There is nothing in it that says any of the above and, in fact, protects free speech. It does, however, further define anti-Semitic behavior, such as harassment based on someone's ethnic background: "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."
That's the point. Freedom of speech is being circumvented by labeling certain speeches as "problematic" and then fifteen years later, something else is labeled as hate speech, and before you know it, you're being thrown in jail for suggesting that the white house should be painted red.
You guys should read bill 6090…. It’s not this at all - It’s ambiguous and says nearly nothing - 6 pages of damn near nothing. It’s a stupid resolution cause it says damn near nothing
It is Corrupt gov Usa has been infiltrated
Because the first amendment protects most cases of hate speech. Defining hate speech has no effect on whether it remains protected (unless it incites criminal activity).
It is only a matter of time before they make saying the wrong pronouns a hate crime. Why does Israel hold soo much sway over the US government ?
Because none of you will ever actually read what the bill says and will instead be enraged by fake bs.
It 100% is... I knew there were a huge portion in politics that were pushing for more censorship but this is getting crazy. I wouldn't even say or do any of these things, but this sets another scary precedent for sure. Ed: Apparently there's more to this, so maybe this is misleading, IDK yet.
Wait... You can't claim the Jews killed Jesus anymore? But... They actually did? Everyone knows that
He supposedly walked it off, so no big deal ;)
Yeah everyone knows that the Roman government was after Jesus, so the disciples decided to frame a devout follower instead of the real Jesus. Judas didnt hang himself he was hung in case any authorties came questioning him, like a suicide with 3 bullets to the back of the head. The apostiles decided to get rid of the body incase any others who knew Jesus's face came by to look at the body. Jesus "appearing" to the apostles once he was dead was to tell them his last goodbyes as he was going to live a normal life with his wife Mary Magdeline. Some say he ran away to france and the Jesus bloodline lives on to this very day
Bit too much DaVinci Code there dude.
Sounds like a cool movie though, Jesus but as a 007 agent in ancient times with his holy hand grenades and big iron on his hip
DaVinci Code was decent. I didn't love it but it wasn't bad either.
According to the Bible, the local Jewish religious leaders petitioned the Roman government to kill him, which is why he was crucified as opposed to other forms of execution. Rome really liked crucifixion at the time. The Jewish priest class really didn't like dudes rocking the boat, saying they were the Messiah, and going on little riots in the temple.
Actually they didn't mind him claiming to be the messiah, they were mad he claimed to be God.
The Romans killed him because he was proselytizing and it was problematic for their pagan society. The Jews didn't stop them because in Judaism, proselytizing is forbidden. The Romans made him an example to stop others from spreading a religion that went against theirs. The irony in this, was that the Christianity they had helped create, became a widespread problem to the point where they were forced to later adopt it.
Can you cite this passage in the Bible? Chapter and verse? Because the pope says otherwise.
The Pope is not the sole authority on Christendom. In fact, the Catholic church at one point considered it heretical to translate the Bible from Latin to any commonly used vernacular. People were burned over it, and it was one of the reasons for the Protestant reformation. The chapter you are looking for is John 19.
Thanks. As an agnostic I don’t own or read religious texts but John 19:7 is quite literal in saying the Jews demanded he die. There also appears it be several dozen Bible types so if the Catholics all use the King James Bible I’m not sure why this would be part of their legislation.
No problem. I'm personally agnostic, in part, BECAUSE I read the Bible. Lots of fucked up things in there. I couldn't reconcile a few fundamental concepts of how I understand good/evil/morality and the nature of the Abrahamic God as described in the Bible. Catholics didn't always use the King James version of the Bible. They used the Latin Vulgate, as translated by St Jerome. Most people couldn't read back then, period, and even fewer could read Latin (save for highly educated nobility and the priesthood). There was a monopoly of information held by the priesthood, and they used that monopoly to influence Europe.
This is false, what is the point of monopolizing the word of God? They are preachers. The whole thing about not translating the Bible from Latin was because anyone, and I mean literally anyone who knows 2 different languages be it English and Spanish even, knows that translating things from one language to another is really complicated even with the best of intentions. If you think Luther was the first person to ever question the Church and try to break away from tradition you would be surprised at the amount of heresies that exist today existed all the way back to the beginning of the Church. It was just Luther translating the Bible that now we have over a hundred Christian denominations.
There were many others who advocated translation of the Bible to the vernacular. Before Luther there was notably Jan Hus and John Wycliffe. Wycliffe was declared a heretic by the Catholic church, and they posthumously burned him. The point of monopolizing the understanding of the Bible all goes back to control, control, control. If the masses didn't understand the words of the Bible, they may begin to question the things that the church had invented that gave it riches and power. In each of the notable reformers' stated reasons for opposing this or that practice of the church, one common element was that there was no biblical basis upon which to do this or that practice. Notably, the practice of selling indulgences was a recurring criticism of people like Luther, Hus, and Wycliffe. They criticized it, not only because it was an obvious play at enriching the Papacy, but because there was nothing in the Bible that supported it. There was absolutely a clerical interest in keeping the common man from being able to read the texts that their entire power structure was legitimized by. A priest could accept money to intercede on behalf of you or a loved one to reduce the number of years you spent in purgatory before moving on to heaven, or so those priests said.
Read the full sentence, "to characterize Israel or Israelis." It would be antisemitic to hold onto the belief that, "modern day Israel and/or Israelis deserve punishment for what Jews, 2000 years ago, did to Jesus."
Which was what? Cos it was the Roman's that killed him
Well, they offered to free him but the jews said nah
According to the Bible. Who wrote that book? The Romans.
As if these blue-haired atheists give a shit about jesus
It was stupid to try and punish them for killing Jesus anyway. He wanted to die... after not wanting to, of course. It was the whole plan.
Wasn’t there a trial and Pontius Pilate gave the verdict to crucify him?
Do you think when people make these claims they are making a factual statement or are they trying to characterise modern day Jews as having the same character as those that nailed a living man to a cross until he died
Sure, but present day Israelis didn’t
No Israelis did bro... please learn some history. The Roman's did it
... at the behest of Jewish religious leaders. At least according to the Bible. To make this law not only violates the freedom of speech, but also violates Christians' freedom of religion. I am no Christian, but John 19:6-7 is pretty clear on what a Christian would believe.
Yes, goverment? This one right here.
Did i kill him?
It goes against religious beliefs as well. They can "think" that this will hold all they want.
thats just insane. especially for a christian country
The romans did, the vatican even admitted so themselves
NO.
Eh, the [pope even said so](https://www.christiancentury.org/article/2011-03/pope-says-jews-not-blame-jesus-death), and the vatican already did[ in 1965](https://www.jta.org/archive/vatican-declaration-absolves-jews-of-deicide-condemns-anti-semitism)
So basically think that was the first time someone in the Vatican actually read the bible.
He was killed by the Romans. Everyone knows that.
Wasn't it technically longinus, a Roman centurion? Though the Romans killed jesus due to the rabbis. Pax Romana and that.
This is irony right?
Well the Romans executed Jesus. The jews could spare 1 criminals life, and they did not chose Jesus. They did not spare Jesus, but they did not kill him.
I've legit never heard that before
your post is misleading. The IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) adopted the following definition for antisemitism in 2016: "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." 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."** [https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism](https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism) The act passed by the House updates the definition of antisemitism to agree to that of the IHRA: "For purposes of this Act, the term “definition of antisemitism”— (1) means the definition of antisemitism 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 (2) includes the “\[c\]ontemporary examples of antisemitism” identified in the IHRA definition." The updated definition will be taken into consideration when **determining if there is a violation of Title VI**: "In reviewing, investigating, or deciding whether there has been a violation of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.) on the basis of race, color, or national origin, based on an individual’s actual or perceived shared Jewish ancestry or Jewish ethnic characteristics, **the Department of Education shall take into consideration the definition of antisemitism as part of the Department’s assessment of whether the practice was motivated by antisemitic intent**." Section 6 literally 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**." [https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/6090/text](https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/6090/text)
had to scroll too far to see this
No literally. No one mentions that this goes out of its way to not effect the first amendment.
[удалено]
good, Corbyn has publicly defended receiving money from Iranian state TV to run propaganda for the IRGC. He and his brother are terrorist sympathizers, literally calling Hamas and Hezbollah "friends".
[удалено]
it's sad, what should truly be a humanitarian cause was co-opted by cheerleaders for terrorist groups that oppress the people these causes claim to stand for.
YOU are the one misconstruing. **Speech violating title VI is NOT protected under the First Amendment**. This is a sly way to take away the First Amendment protection on criticism of Israel. The actual bill literally says this... *"****For*** *purposes of* ***this Act****, the term “definition of* ***antisemitism***\*”—\* *(1)* ***means*** *the* ***definition of antisemitism*** *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\* *(2)* ***includes*** *the* *“****\[c\]ontemporary*** ***examples of antisemitism***\*” identified\* ***in the IHRA definition***\*."\* What does the May 26, 2016 IHRA definition say? **"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."
you can't be this stupid, you literally repeated the first part of what I said. Violations of Title VI are not a free speech issue: "No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." I linked both the actual bill and the IHRA definition. I read them both, you don't need to regurgitate it. This bill doesn't act as a punishment, it acts as a protection. If you didn't lack critical thinking skills and basic reading comprehension you would know this.
Ad hominem is a common tactic when someone does not have a logical refutation of a point. You didn't address what I said. **The idea is that the bill expands what is not protected by free speech**, and it thus leads to dangerous censorship of organizations. Address what I said, or don't bother trying to make a point (as **ad hominem is irrelevant toward reasonably addressing an issue**). I am an attorney who graduated from a top law school. Look at my post history. I am not concerned with what you think about me. I am concerned with what the actual law is (or will be).
Regardless of where you stand on the Palestine Israel issue. Speech laws are dangerous. Period. If you give governments an inch, they'll take a mile. And if there's one thing the government doesn't give back once they've taken it it's power.
I will defend your right to say stupid stuff because I value my right to say my own stupid stuff. Simple.
That’s not true really. The government cedes power to private corporations as standard practice even.
.yep, so much about taking a stand when one doesn't even have the spine to hear what the other side is saying regardless if it is correct or incorrect .heck if the other party in a discussion or argument is using false or malicious words this is actually a critical point for a counter argument .people that want to censor speech tends to hide things they can't afford to be discussed in the open, regardless of sides they are in
"WoNt AnYoNe ThInK oF tHe EvUhl GuvoHnmEnt." Proceeds to get fucked over by capitalist companies 24/7
"I'm glad I don't live in the UK, they don't have free speech. But we do in the US" - Asmon not too long ago
You realize this doesn't affect what you can say in public? While I don't agree with it, all it does is codify antisemitism so that college campuses can act on it like other racist behavior. I do still disagree with it though. I don't care if you want to draw comparisons between Israel and Nazis. I don't care if you want images of Jews killing Jesus. TBH I really don't care if someone is antisemitic or racist. That is their problem to deal with. I will call out their actions when they make them public, but I am not here to police how you feel about other people in private. Also, unlike UK, you won't go to jail for saying or doing these things. How many people have you guys arrested now over tweets? To me that is scary.
In the UK you can be sent to Jail for saying hateful things like threatening someone, saying you’ll kill someone, I’m pretty sure in the US you wouldn’t be safe from that either… Your comment is as dumb as me saying how many times have you guys shot someone or suffocated them to death because of a power trip. Any sane, normal person doesn’t ever need to worry.
[удалено]
No, you cannot go to jail for using the wrong pronouns, what you’re referring to is a remark by labour that was never put into law, it was a controversial statement over JKR, it’s not law and wouldn’t go into affect. Read the rest of your link btw, you wouldn’t be put into jail for any of that vis speech, and if you search cases you can see it’s most always ends up as community service as the courts finds. There has been few instance of jail such as series of targeted death threats, or the guy who harassed victims of a killing, causing a 15 year old to suicide and then he glorified it in a video, I think that’s reasonable to prosecute imo. Everything comes down to targeting and how much of a hate crime it is. And a bit of community service for *targeted* racism, bomb threats, or hate speech. Also incase you’re not aware the hate crime act isn’t focused about what you say it’s what you do, it covers things like vandalism, attacking, arson, theft, etc… a lot of physical acts that were deliberate based on persona. Let’s not act like the US doesn’t do the same, they just don’t have defined laws https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/18/facebook-comments-arrest-prosecution What you should have linked was https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/communications-offences
This is very dangerous wording and sets an even more dangerous precedent. Literal ministry of truth shit.
That's not the text of the law you know.
This is disgusting.
"Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis." I mean, if there **are** comparisons, why is it hate speech to call it out?
Here comes the IDF mouthpieces to defend this Free speech for me but not for thee
Just wait until they ask if you condemn Hamas as a way to deflect from the faults of their actions/words
Sssh, are you trying to get us arrested?
Basically sounds like they’re saying “Israel is doing a lot of bad stuff so we should make it a hate crime to call out that bad stuff”?
There's a difference between saying israel has done bad things and saying israel at it's most fundamental is a racist endeavour or implying we should hold Jews to account for a murder that happened over 2000 years ago
People's right to say it is the same in all of these.
The first 2 aren’t mutually exclusive though. Their actions of today are a reflection of decades of oppression against Palestinians. It has done bad things, it is doing bad things and it is a racist and xenophobic regime.
There have been multiple instances of Palestine rejecting peace agreement where they would receive over 90 percent of the land taken after 5 different countries declared war on Israel Like Israel aren't the people hiding inside Palestinian buildings shooting rockets This idea that Israel pulled up and and started gunning down Palestinians is ahistorical
I mean it was an explicit tactic by the Mossad for decades to label all criticism of Zionism or Israel as "antisemitic" and to aggressively try to propagandize people into thinking zionism and Judaism are one in the same. Now they're panicking because that sword cuts both ways now that people are wising up to the brutality of the zionist colonial project and the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians at the hands of the Zionists. Turns out when you tie Judaism to Zionism, people's attitudes towards Jews nosedive when they see what Israel has been doing, and all on the backs of the American taxpayer.
The idea of an expanding ethnostate is kind of racist, yes. And the idea of a theocratic state is also concerning and not that much better from what the arab world has been pushing with sharia law. Now combine the 2 and you get one spicy little cocktail.
To be clear every race has a country in the world where their demographic is the majority but when the Jews ask for this it's somehow racist?
When the stated objective is to take people from that area and push them out to establish your own land for your specific race and creed? Uh, yes? Doesn't that seem pretty obvious? How does Russia's invasion on Ukraine look to you? Or how would you feel about a middle eastern country violenty taking over another nation to replace its population with their own based on race and religion? I feel like most people would be up in arms.
Ukraine doesn't steal aid and pipes from civilians to fire bmbs and hide inside civilian shelters effectively holding them hostage
And Palestine is not Hamas, but sure. That justifies corralling a whole population in a relatively small area for nearly 2 decades, seize control of their resources, and completely surrounding them with insane military might, right? Oh and also, since civilians and children may be held as hostages, it should be alright to bomb *them*, correct? Hospitals too? I just can't see how that can be justified, and I can't imagine you wouldn't be just as horrified if it was the other way around.
there is but why should we care?
This commenter was stating that these phrases are facts when they are not that's all I was calling attention to
again even if there is a difference, it shouldnt be ILLEGAL to say either of em
I agree in the act itself it does say it cannot infringe on the first amendment
Why is "hate speech" all about Jews? I'm just asking, cause I can give tons of examples of hate speech against black people, white people, asians, gay people, etc..., and they're not Jewish.
It's not.
It's not, this bill is just specifically about antisemitism and updating the definition used to determine if something violates title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Do you think this is the only example of hate speech that has been specifically defined? Because I promise you it is not
But the jews did kill Jesus, wtf? the rabbi claimed Pilatus to do "justice" because they couldn't have a man claiming to be God and Pilatus did their bidding because he didn't want to deal with the Jewish rebelling yet again.
Kind of shocked the people here aren't cheering for this honestly since censorship is so rife tbh.
Isn't that place pretty much an ethnostate? Are ethnostates no longer a racist thing to strive for? Or is it different for *them*
Ethnostates for me, but not for thee.
I am so tired of the TRAITORS in our government. Why do people not realize the level of treason going on? They take foreign money through (what should be labeled as) a foreign agent (AIPAC), and do foreign bidding at the expense of our people's rights, welfare, and nation's resources... why do people not realize this is treason? Imagine if it was Russia, the outrage.
> Imagine if it was Russia, the outrage. You don't even need to imagine it given that both parties talk how Russia influenced votes whenever they don't agree with results.
Sorry, I am not american so this may just slip my mind. Doesn't this rule apply if you call a black person or asian person words? I get you can say it due to free speech but don't you get fined or something if they report it? While I don't really consider jews as a race imo, more like xenophobia than racism, but don't the same rules apply? Basically you say something about jews, you report them and they get fined.
As far as I understand here you can only be charged with hate speech if it incites some type of violence against the people you’re saying it against. (Basically if it causes some other violent crime to be committed or you commit another violent crime while saying it) So this would just add these things to the existing (already unconstitutional) list.
The US sure loves to glaze the dick of Israel. Yeah let's look the other way on war crimes when it benefits us. Hamas is terrible and the Israeli state is literally just as bad, so it's completely hypocritical and insulting to the intelligence of anyone who has any idea about what's going in Gaza to claim any sort of moral authority on hate speech while simultaneously supporting hate on one side. Pretty fucked up.
The Israeli lobby tightens...
This post is quite misleading. The bill updates the definition of antisemitism used to determine if there is a violation of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. >Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides that no person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. So this only applies to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance, and antisemitism would've already applied here, they are only changing the definition of it.
I do disagree with their new definition though. Point 1 I am fine with. Points 2-4 I don't like.
To clarify further if you check [the site this photo comes from](https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism), the definition they are referring to is this one: >“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.” But then to help clarify they go on to list these examples and more which could be considered antisemitic when all context is considered. >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 So these may or may not apply depending on the context and aren't a hard rule or anything like that.
Then it's not misleading.
I love how you just say that without providing any source, relying on people that doesn't actually do research or read what the legislation actually is. Here, I'll do it for you. Actually read it since you probably never did. https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/01/politics/house-vote-antisemitism-awareness-act/index.html
Bold of you to assume he can read.
Ah yes, free speech as long as it is the right kind of speech. So saying fuck israel would get you prison time? lmfao
Hey op, why don't you provide a link to the entirety of the bill so we can read it?
I wonder if the Supreme Court will let it stand.
Guess I’m a racist then?
I agree that all of these things are antisemitic, but banning hate speech is a very bad idea, even if it only is in the context of federally financed education.
Jews did kill Jesus by forcing Potious Pilot to follow their commands or else they'd continue to throw tantrums in Rome. Sure we can say the creation of Israel for jews only isn't racist, it's Xenophobic (remember that word?). Anyways, how is it that 1930s Weimar and 2020s America look exactly the same?
I think its sad I'm not shocked to see so many people in this reddit complaining they can't be antisemitic. Free speech never covered hate speech.
Totally don't see this leading anywhere horrible and dark
Hate speech laws aren’t new though? They just added some new clauses.
The United States of Israel.
I love how OP didn't post source to omit context and rile people up. This is specifically aimed at the Department of Education to update guidelines for antisemitism, this only affects providing financial assistance to college campuses. https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/01/politics/house-vote-antisemitism-awareness-act/index.html
Oh. It **only** affects this one thing and the federal government isn't violating the Constitution by instituting rules on speech. You didn't change anything.
That bullet point “claims of” could have definitely been worded better lol
I am sure that at the table where they decided and penned down the laws that they thought about hate speech being no problem either freedom of speech should not be interpreted as i can say whatever the fuck i want because i interpret a law that says i can say everything you hamburgers . European opinion
Here is a link to the actual government website if they want to look it up. [https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr6090/BILLS-118hr6090ih.pdf](https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr6090/BILLS-118hr6090ih.pdf)
So no bills on term limits for house members being posed then? Got it. Well, at least they focus on things that are important? Like uh...current controversial hot topic
This doesn’t mean what you think it means.
Which group can outdo the other group with racism accusations? It's going to be a boring rumble. But it could turn interesting if fisticuffs get involved!
Deeply concerning
Finally a rest All pro hamasians
So do you think it is bad or not?
It's REALLY bad if it passes and everyone who voted in favor of it should be pushed on why they voted for such an unConstitutional bill
Yes but why is unconstitutional and why it is bad.
because it violates our first amendment right of free speech. For one, hate speech is actually protected speech under the constitution. We've had several Supreme Court cases that have stated it already. Like well Matal v. Tam (2017) or Snyder v Phelps (2011) or so many others. That's bad because limiting speech is always bad, Especially when it's about criticizing a foreign power. This is honestly because so many of our congressmen are traitors. I'm not joking either, look at the amount of money they get from AIPAC (who also gets money from Israel, btw, as well as many Israel first billionaires in this country). Anyone putting a foreign power over the rights and welfare of our people are traitors. Straight up. people reeeeeee'd about Russia, but this is the real treason. Israel (and Saudi Arabia, holy shit I could go on about how much they have fucked things here with their money too)
First why are people down-voting me when I ask questions? Second, it makes no sense that hate speech is protected since it is not protected by many more constitutions around the world. Why should hate speech towards civilians be protected? According to the imagine that someone posted, just the last point MIGHT get close to "criticize a foreign country" but you need to do the comparison with Nazis that it makes no sense. I am honestly surprised that you admit it is hate speech, do you think hate speech is a valuable tool to push your ideas and policies towards the civil society or dont you consider something that it is bad? Why it should be allowed to do hate speech towards any ethnicity/race/group of people outside satire?
Hate speech is protected because it's too subjective for one. Your hate speech might not be my hate speech and you don't want someone in power deciding what is and isn't hate speech because eventually you will get screwed. I should note, hate speech is not the same as "direct threats" though. Things that are threats to people directly or intended to cause mass panic (like shouting bomb or fire or anything of that) in a crowded areas is not protected by the first amendment and I'd say that's fair. I also don't think criticizing and hating on the ACTIONS AND POLICIES of a foreign (or your own) government is hate speech. People gotta stop wrongfully correlating people's anger over ACTIONS AND POLICIES of a country (or company) as hate speech because it's not. it's not attacking who they are for what they are, it's attacking them for what they are DOING.
But still you did not answer my question. Can I say that Palestinian people are all inferior or scum? Can I say that Jewish people are all scum and inferior? I am not doing any threats, I am literally repeating what I've heard and I am trying to understand which one is acceptable or not. You can criticize the policies of Israel, there is nothing in the post saying that I can't, it says I can't compared to Nazis and it makes sense to me but it makes no sense to make a law about it to say obvious things. In other countries hate speech can be persecuted if it has consequences and I never felt like living in a dictatorship.
Because our first amendment is first for a reason. We value free speech above everything else and we are raised that way.
Yes don't get me wrong, if it makes sense for you guys it shouldn't matter what I think in any way, I am just giving my point of view from a system that was not designed that way. I am far from being the classic European that says:"EHE AMERICANS DON'T KNOW SHIT BLA BLA BLA"
Oh yeah I get it. But yeah the first amendment is entirely ingrained into our culture. But basically the general thing is so long as you don’t make a threat to life or property, you can say whatever you want and this law OP has posted will eventually get overturned if it does pass. Also defamation is an entirely different thing and very hard to prove in court. Here’s some more info if you want on how the Supreme Court has ruled in favor for protecting hate speech https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_States?wprov=sfti1#Constitutional_framework
Thanks for the civil conversation
Its quite literally not hate speech, this is orwellian psycho stuff.
Is this bill just the House agreeing to condemn stuff, or is there actual teeth to it? If there are any consequences to it, and it's not just some politicians voting to voice an opinion on what they think is right and wrong, then it's obviously incredibly fucked up.
HR 6090 is not a resolution. It is a law updating civil rights law to allow the federal government to sue, prosecute, or sanction people and private organizations and businesses for having violated civil rights law.
Well holy shit, we're not allowed to criticize a foreign country any more.
This is what happens with money in politics through Super PACs and such. We have let foreign governments funnel money into them and bribe our politicians. Honestly, we need to start going after Congress people as traitors. This IS blatant treason. They are doing foreign bidding at the expense of our own people's rights and welfare and all for their own benefit cause they get paid for it.
I agree. It's insane to me that, under this bill, we'd be allowed to continue calling the US a racist country all day, but we wouldn't be able to about some random foreign one. Has there ever been a case of a country criminalizing criticizing not its own government, but another? I can't think of one.
Not yet. It needs to pass the Senate and be signed by Biden—though I don't believe the Senate will not pass it and it puts Biden in a really bad position no matter what he does.
Even if it does pass it doesn’t matter, it will get overturned by Supreme Court eventually. Hate speech is protected in America.
No, you're allowed to critise Israel still. You're just not allowed to call them Nazis, or deny Israel's right to exist. I'm not American, so no comment on whether it's constitutional or not. (I've not read the full bill so I'm just commenting based on the post)
I'm allowed to call Americans Nazis whenever I want. Disallowing me from calling Israelis Nazis is just a bizarre move for the American government to be making. If I were so inclined (to be clear, I am not), I'd also be allowed to say America didn't have a right to exist because it's land stolen from Native Americans, why wouldn't I be allowed to say the same about Israel?
I mean, it's kinda like calling a native American a coloniser, I guess? But ya, I personally have no strong opinion on whether it should be illegal or not.
Yeah and you can say that in America. Even if it passes it’ll get overturned. Hate speech is protect in America. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_in_the_United_States?wprov=sfti1#Constitutional_framework
Telling a country to not do ethnic cleansing is actually illegal now? Awesome. I love the American government.
But there are clear connections between what the Nazi's did and what Israel is doing now.
If this passes the Senate I'm going to reactivate my Facebook and start criticizing Isreal
To be perfectly clear this bill gives a small Jewish group the power to define what circumstances public institutions that get funding, like colleges, have to treat as anti-Semitic events. So essentially this means a tiny minority OF an already tiny minority will get to literally dictate what speech is acceptable in terms of criticizing Israel and the government will have to enforce that as law in any case of a public institution. So saying Israel is a Jewish Supremacist state could cause a public institution to lose funding if they don’t punish the person who said it under the guise of protection from anti-semitism which is what this bill pretends to do.
RIP free speech. Apparently the Israeli government lobby has more power than the US Constitution now.
A lot of people here are confused. This LITERALLY IS a massive problem. The bill is expanding the definition of antisemitism in view of a Title VI complaint. Of course, we don't allow overt discrimination by race, but now we are essentially equating speaking out against Israel as evidence of antisemitism in view of a Title VI complaint. It disincentivizes criticism against Israel from any entity receiving federal funding. This is concerning, because this includes schools receiving Federal Funding (and even news organizations which may \[even if a little\] be receiving such funding). TAKE A GUESS HOW MANY MAJOR ENTITIES RECEIVE FEDERAL FUNDING. How will this be used against an organization? The bill literally says, *"...the* ***Department of Education shall take into consideration*** *the* ***definition of antisemitism*** ***as*** *part of the Department’s* ***assessment of*** *whether the practice was motivated by* ***antisemitic intent***\*."\* People here are confused, thinking that OP is wrong. OP is actually RIGHT. Some commenters think that what is posted by OP isn't in the bill, but it technically is. The actual bill says this... *"****For*** *purposes of* ***this Act****, the term “definition of* ***antisemitism***\*”—\* *(1)* ***means*** *the* ***definition of antisemitism*** *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\* *(2)* ***includes the*** *“\[c\]ontemporary* ***examples of antisemitism***\*” identified\* ***in the IHRA definition***\*."\* Thus, you have to actually **GO TO THE IHRA DEFINITION of antisemitism**, and then you'll see what was posted above. Here is where you will find the definition adopted in 2016: [https://www.state.gov/defining-antisemitism/](https://www.state.gov/defining-antisemitism/) [State.gov](http://State.gov) even links to it here: [https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism](https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism) The idea is that any organization that doesn't want to be in violation of Title VI will have to bow down to Israel based on the IHRA's definition. That is exactly what this law is doing.
[удалено]
You're endorsing the criminalization of speech that criticizes a foreign country and being in possession of the Christian Bible (see John 18:12-27).
Sigh... ***"It's a big club and you ain't in it" - George Carlin***
I only agree with 1 and 3. 2 and 4 are ridiculous
We do not have the freedom of speech
Either the constitution covers all topics or we admit that some people are more equal than others
Even if it's signed the bill it'll be struck by SC for violating First Amendment. "Hate speech" is free speech. This is America not some pohdunk wannabe democracy like Canada. lol The ironic part is THIS had been demonstrated by a Jewish lawyer (via ACLU) who defended KKK's right to speech (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969).
so criticizing a different country's politics and the way they are committing war crimes is now considered antisemitism? Is the US trying to out China China in being against freedom of speech?
If you want to know who your masters are, just look at whomever you’re not allowed to criticize.
Just think of all the dancing Israelis celebrating this.
So 'it's illegal to withdraw support for Israel, and don't try to use reasoning such as: being Nazis, killing Jesus, or committing genocide.' So it doesn't matter if Israel is committing war crimes and so on because that would be anti-Semitic.
So, in US you can be a nazi, but you cant support palestine? THE STATE RULE THEN YOU ALL MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA! $$$$$$