Re: the Republican anti-anti-Semitism on college campuses bill

BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

Thu, 2 May 2024 17:37:44 -0000 (UTC) Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

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?

. . .

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.

Yet somehow I feel sure the Democrats would be EXTREMELY unhappy if any
new law limited the right of their precious "progressive" students from
being as anti-Israel/anti-Semitic as they wanted to be.

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

A worthy goal!

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.

That was then, this is now. My perception is that the ACLU has morphed
beyond recognition into a hard-core anti-capitalist left wing group of
advocates.

Matt Walsh summed up my thoughts on the bill and the absolute inability of
Republicans to take a win without cocking it all up:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5FadIjHlYcM&t=608s

I watched the entire video. He persuaded me.

There's no way I'll support anything that gives foreign governments the
ability to set the limits of acceptable speech in America.

I had no idea that this organization had governmental members till he
explained who they were.