the Republican anti-anti-Semitism on college campuses bill

I'm trying to figure out if I support the legislation that passed the
House yesterday defining anti-Semitism and requiring the Department of
Education to use the definition to determine whether a university has
failed to take action against anti-Semitism. Department of Education may
be required to cut federal funding for universities found to be
disriminating.

Anti-Semitism is an expression of thought. The definition, which
includes in its definition of anti-Semitism the criticism of Israel that
tends to apply uniquely to Israel and no other nation on earth, is
possibly a reasonable one.

The incidents of speech can certainly be labeled as anti-Semitic, along
with incidents in which threats, intimidation, vandalism, and violence
have occurred.

Is the legislation requiring universities to shut down protests or
punish those participating in the protests if there is no finding that
the speech also included threats and intimidation?

Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia) opposed the legislation on religious
grounds. Do I look to her for leadership on religion or anything at all?
She wrote that she would not vote for the law because it "could convict
Christians of antisemitism for believing the gospel that says Jesus was
handed over to Herod to be crucified by the Jews." This has been used as
justification for violence against Jews over the centuries.

I heard excerpts of the bill's sponsor's speech on the House floor on
C-SPAN this morning. Michael Lawler (R-New York) is the lead sponsor. He
explained that he was trying to help college leaders understand what
anti-Semitism is because they have so much trouble noticing it taking
place. I couldn't stop laughing.

The bill's sponsors stated that the bill includes language that does not
thwart criticism of the government of Israel. I'm not sure. The
anti-Semitic criticism of Israel they are trying to thwart could be an
expression of anti-Semitism (under the definition) and may not be an
attempt to threaten or intimidate. It's possible to be anti-Semitic
without making a death threat.

These are my concerns. I haven't thus far found concerns stated by
Democrats who opposed the legislation to be all that specific to
concerns they claim to have over the potential for free speech to be
stifled.

Even if Republicans supporting this legislation have the moral high
ground -- and they do appear to -- I don't want speech stifled.

Even those students supporting Hamas might have been represented by
David Goldberger to protect their civil right to free speech, in the
olden days in which the ACLU represented Kluxers and neo-Nazis so that
the rest of us might speak freely.