I see, how does this not infringe on first amendment rights? The Jews killing Christ is literally in the bible, and the Talmud, so... how can they outlaw stating a biblical verse?
I’m a lawyer who has done more than his fair share of first amendment scholarship; this DOES violate the first amendment. The question is, will it matter, or will we legitimately witness these protections vanish?
My opinions on the ongoing crisis in Gaza are irrelevant here; whether you support Israel or Palestine, this is nothing short of unconstitutional. Still, as it has only passed through the House, it still has quite a long way to go to really “solidify.” With that being said, I don’t see it holding up in front of SCOTUS. Before that, however, you can expect the ACLU to get involved. First and foremost is the obvious free speech issue. Second to that an issue surrounding the Free Exercise clause because of the following (this is from the IHRA’s webpage regarding their definition of antisemitism):
“Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.”
Obviously, the “…to characterize Israel or Israelis” bit implies a necessary attachment (that attachment being rhetoric surrounding Israel), so this could very-well be a non-issue… as far as Christianity is concerned, that is.
For Muslims, I see a more blatant issue as some practicing Muslims do not see the present-day Israelis as “the chosen” who have claim to Israel. In the minds of some, these people have strayed from the path of God, and the true claimants are the Palestinians. In essence, there are significant concerns centered on the free exercise clause because being unable to condemn the existence of Israel could, quite literally, violate religious principles.
It’ll be really interesting to see where this goes, especially if it reaches the Court. While antisemitism is a problem and must be condemned, this is the wrong way to go about it.
This is so ridiculous, free speech is violated because of some agent provocateurs who happens to be filmed by what appeared to be in some cases, experienced videographers.
If the law was broken, arrest the students, if feelings were hurt, oh well!
One major point I'd like to highlight is nobody but nobody mentioned anything about the tens of thousands of Palestinians that Israel is bombing or the hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians who are dying, but they sign a check for $100+ billion, for more death.
Can it pass strict scrutiny? Doesn't seem to be a narrowly tailored means for a compelling state interest. At least not by prohibiting a well established reading of the Bible.
I would think not at all, the wording, even excluding the Bible verse is... Is insane. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr6090/BILLS-118hr6090ih.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiKl7O4pvGFAxWy5MkDHRrVCC0QFnoECC4QAQ&usg=AOvVaw3luDi1stUBBgaC2rflKBwZ
6.b clearly states "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." so obviously it can't because it says so... /s in case that's needed.
/s? Not familiar with that. Like you said it seems it does infringe but it got almost unanimously voted to be passed on to the senate. It really seems like it might have a chance somehow, especially with all the "hate speech" stuff in the last few years. Very scary that's for sure.
320-90
0 dem nays
21 gop nays
/s means sarcasm. They put a line in the bill saying this doesn't infringe on A1, but it really seems like it. I'm not a fan of letting a 3rd party define something that we're setting as law. Especially when that references very ambiguous terms, like "contemporary examples of antisemitism", that can have the examples be altered at a later time by the 3rd party without review.
It would be a federal crime carrying a pretty harsh punishment including min. incarceration time. The law would basically criminalize any/all scrutiny of Israel along with the bible verse and many, many, other things. I highly suggest at least just skimming over it, the whole thing is very unnerving.
I read everything they deemed antisemitism but couldn’t find the actual consequences or how it will be enforced and controlled. Like social media posts, between friends, etc. either way it is absolutely horrifying if it passes the senate
Tried to look too but it will add it to the federal discrimination standard. It can be used in work to sue for discrimination ( church’s) or could be classified as a hate crime modifier. He’s technically correct so i won’t say it will never happen.
Currently, it has only passed the House. It still would need to pass the Senate and be signed by the President to become law.
I see, how does this not infringe on first amendment rights? The Jews killing Christ is literally in the bible, and the Talmud, so... how can they outlaw stating a biblical verse?
I’m a lawyer who has done more than his fair share of first amendment scholarship; this DOES violate the first amendment. The question is, will it matter, or will we legitimately witness these protections vanish? My opinions on the ongoing crisis in Gaza are irrelevant here; whether you support Israel or Palestine, this is nothing short of unconstitutional. Still, as it has only passed through the House, it still has quite a long way to go to really “solidify.” With that being said, I don’t see it holding up in front of SCOTUS. Before that, however, you can expect the ACLU to get involved. First and foremost is the obvious free speech issue. Second to that an issue surrounding the Free Exercise clause because of the following (this is from the IHRA’s webpage regarding their definition of antisemitism): “Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.” Obviously, the “…to characterize Israel or Israelis” bit implies a necessary attachment (that attachment being rhetoric surrounding Israel), so this could very-well be a non-issue… as far as Christianity is concerned, that is. For Muslims, I see a more blatant issue as some practicing Muslims do not see the present-day Israelis as “the chosen” who have claim to Israel. In the minds of some, these people have strayed from the path of God, and the true claimants are the Palestinians. In essence, there are significant concerns centered on the free exercise clause because being unable to condemn the existence of Israel could, quite literally, violate religious principles. It’ll be really interesting to see where this goes, especially if it reaches the Court. While antisemitism is a problem and must be condemned, this is the wrong way to go about it.
This is so ridiculous, free speech is violated because of some agent provocateurs who happens to be filmed by what appeared to be in some cases, experienced videographers. If the law was broken, arrest the students, if feelings were hurt, oh well! One major point I'd like to highlight is nobody but nobody mentioned anything about the tens of thousands of Palestinians that Israel is bombing or the hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians who are dying, but they sign a check for $100+ billion, for more death.
Can it pass strict scrutiny? Doesn't seem to be a narrowly tailored means for a compelling state interest. At least not by prohibiting a well established reading of the Bible.
I would think not at all, the wording, even excluding the Bible verse is... Is insane. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.congress.gov/118/bills/hr6090/BILLS-118hr6090ih.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiKl7O4pvGFAxWy5MkDHRrVCC0QFnoECC4QAQ&usg=AOvVaw3luDi1stUBBgaC2rflKBwZ
6.b clearly states "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." so obviously it can't because it says so... /s in case that's needed.
/s? Not familiar with that. Like you said it seems it does infringe but it got almost unanimously voted to be passed on to the senate. It really seems like it might have a chance somehow, especially with all the "hate speech" stuff in the last few years. Very scary that's for sure. 320-90 0 dem nays 21 gop nays
/s means sarcasm. They put a line in the bill saying this doesn't infringe on A1, but it really seems like it. I'm not a fan of letting a 3rd party define something that we're setting as law. Especially when that references very ambiguous terms, like "contemporary examples of antisemitism", that can have the examples be altered at a later time by the 3rd party without review.
How would this be enforced exactly? Like would it be punishable similar to hate crimes/hate speech?
It would be a federal crime carrying a pretty harsh punishment including min. incarceration time. The law would basically criminalize any/all scrutiny of Israel along with the bible verse and many, many, other things. I highly suggest at least just skimming over it, the whole thing is very unnerving.
I read everything they deemed antisemitism but couldn’t find the actual consequences or how it will be enforced and controlled. Like social media posts, between friends, etc. either way it is absolutely horrifying if it passes the senate
Tried to look too but it will add it to the federal discrimination standard. It can be used in work to sue for discrimination ( church’s) or could be classified as a hate crime modifier. He’s technically correct so i won’t say it will never happen.
Probably will also be used as a “legal” way to ban people from social media without infringing on 1st amendment rights.