It should be a maxim of our Constitutional Republic and inculcated into the collective consciousness that thou shalt not let legislators vote hastily on bills in response to current events. They almost always waste money, infringe on rights, or produce lousy laws, and the Antisemitism Awareness Act is an example of this bad idea.
Listen to the voiceover.
In response to the recent on-campus nonsense the U.S. House of Representatives has found something upon which a majority of them agree. The “unrest” is an opportunity to suppress constitutionally protected speech.
The Antisemitism Awareness Act (H.R. 6090) passed 320-91, not because it is good law or necessary for public interest or safety, but because it gives the appearance of doing something. Doing what?
How about shutting down debate.
“Students,” – and there are credible claims of organized outside action using the campus environment to advance other aims – are saying mean things about Jews. Yes, there is some violence, but we already have laws to address that. Most colleges, college towns, cities, and states have laws elevating punishments for actual crimes if the prosecutor can prove someone was motivated by hate. Those are bad laws, but their proliferation has skewed law and lawmaking, and The Antisemitism Awareness Act is an example of this.
It requires the Department of Education to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of antisemitism when enforcing federal anti-discrimination laws. The working definition says antisemitism is in-part “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.” The definition includes denying Jewish people their right to self-determination by claiming that the State of Israel is a racist state and drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
Detractors take issue with narrowing the definition. I take issue with the entire exercise. Discriminatory speech in the public square is protected speech. The umbrella (regardless of size) under which any individual or group might label words or ideas as hate speech is still protected speech.
It is still protected First Amendment expression.
But It’s Mean!
Saying mean things is not a crime; just check social media or go outside. People can be jerks; it’s annoying and distracting, sometimes amusing, and at other times an opportunity to make a point, but it is not a crime.
Mean+action is already a crime (depending on the action). Incitement to violence is a crime. Libel and Slander are crimes.
These restrictions are narrow to ensure the government does not infringe on protected speech or is encouraged to do so by any individual, group, 50.1% of a mob, or well-meaning legislators.
We’re not supposed to like it, but disagreeing is the point.
Shouting “From the River to the Sea” is loaded with sinister connotations, but it is protected speech. Calling for any “cleansing”-be it ethnic, religious, tribal, or ideological is offensive and evil, but unless you are organizing to do it or actually caught doing it (or trying to do it), that can be proven in a court of law, saying it is protected speech.
That will offend some, but the alternative is more offensive to human liberty. It opens the door to further meddling and redefining of things that inevitably protect government abuse and people in power at the expense of natural human rights.
Check Out Steve’s Substack
Then There’s The Other Exception-alism
We hear talk, especially from the political right, about American Exceptionalism. Anyone anywhere, regardless of any demographic characteristic, can work hard and succeed. They can define what success means to them and feel content when they reach it. It can and is different for each of us, and as long as the opportunity to define your success is protected, anyone should be able to seek it. It has allowed the American experiment to lift more people out of poverty than any system of government yet known.
This is not the limit of what could be considered, but it is exceptional in these respects.
Along comes H.R. 6090. Let’s say it becomes law and survives Constitutional scrutiny. What happens when we elect a Jewish president? Are students no longer permitted to object based on the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism (and that will change in response to the law at the behest of people looking to suppress speech)?
Will the imposition of this legislation affect students’ ability to object to Jewish members of Congress for fear of running afoul? What about its application at the local level?
Will or could The Federal Department of Education migrate these restrictions into the Public Schools, holding funding hostage in exchange for compliance?
Given that (theoretical) success, why would they stop at alleged Antisemitism? Doesn’t every other “group” deserve similar protection in the name of equity? And why are we restricting this to college campuses? Let’s let it roam free, a chilling silence following in its wake.
Lessons Not Learned?
The oppressive response to COVID lingers, but humans are quick to forget. Given the opportunity, those in elected office at every level were quick to abuse their authority. Constitutionally protected rights were jabbed, masked, and distanced. Stuffed in the trunk and told to shut up. That was because we let it happen. Towns, Cities, Counties, and states had (over the years) crafted for themselves loopholes, none of which should have stood up to constitutional scrutiny when applied. When the time came, suppressing rights took precedence. People lost jobs, businesses, livelihoods, friends, and the right to speak and associate freely. Prohibitions of warrantless search were abridged.
The courts were not much help, and since they are part of the government, why should they?
In the Movie Field of Dreams, the voice whispers build it, and they will come. COVID taught us, shouted from every corner of our lives, that if the government can abuse it, it will. If we let them make it, they will beat us with it.
H.R. 6090 has been collecting dust since it was introduced last October, a few weeks after October 7th.
Not long after the ‘campus protests’ started – whose origin may not be entirely organic – it got fast-tracked.
You’d be right to question everything while you still can.
