Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Pro-Palestinian supporters at Columbia University confront Jews ‘to push them out of camp’
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="RocksInMyHead" data-source="post: 77663638" data-attributes="member: 284142"><p>Here's the full article, no paywall: <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/02/us/politics/antisemitism-jews-republicans-democrats-congress.html?unlocked_article_code=1.pE0.Q3qV.WZXWm2Y9HKdI&smid=url-share" target="_blank">Bill to Combat Antisemitism on Campuses Prompts Backlash From the Right</a></p><p></p><p>I think Greene's specific objections are incorrect, and she's not the best person to say what is or isn't antisemitic (given her "Jewish space laser" comments), but I do think that this bill is only gaining traction as a reactionary response to the protests, and reactionary laws rushed through to make a statement are rarely well-thought-out. There are a few important considerations that I think Congress is ignoring here:</p><p></p><p>1. Writing a law that explicitly adopts a 3rd party's definition of something as a legal definition is always a bit shaky. It's one thing to write your own definition that's heavily based on an existing one, or even just to copy a definition wholesale, but to have the law be "we will use x organization's definition of this term" leaves the law very open-ended. Most obviously, that organization's definition can change - IHRA even labels it a "working definition". What happens if the definition changes in such a way that it no longer reflects the intent of the lawmakers? Additionally, because the lawmakers did not write the definition that they are using, it must be considered that the definition being adopted is actually the lawmakers' <em>interpretation </em>of a definition that's been written by someone else. That may or may not line up with the intent of the actual writers.</p><p></p><p>2. Tying into that, as stated by one of the original writers of the IHRA working definition of antisemitism, it was never intended to be the foundation of any sort of legal statute or as a way to control speech. The problem with quieting speech is that it allows those who are affect to cry persecution - especially in a country that prides itself on freedom of speech like the US.</p><p></p><p>3. The IHRA definition includes sections that cover criticism of Israel. While they do state that "criticism that could reasonably be levied against other countries cannot be considered antisemitism", that's a nebulous enough statement that it could have a chilling effect on speech - for instance, they say that comparisons of Israel's government to Nazis (i.e. in their treatment of Palestinians) is antisemitic, but similar comparisons can and have been reasonably made towards other governments in their treatment of minority groups.</p><p></p><p>Similar bills have been attempted a few times over the past decade or so, and they've all failed - primarily due to freedom of speech concerns.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="RocksInMyHead, post: 77663638, member: 284142"] Here's the full article, no paywall: [URL="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/02/us/politics/antisemitism-jews-republicans-democrats-congress.html?unlocked_article_code=1.pE0.Q3qV.WZXWm2Y9HKdI&smid=url-share"]Bill to Combat Antisemitism on Campuses Prompts Backlash From the Right[/URL] I think Greene's specific objections are incorrect, and she's not the best person to say what is or isn't antisemitic (given her "Jewish space laser" comments), but I do think that this bill is only gaining traction as a reactionary response to the protests, and reactionary laws rushed through to make a statement are rarely well-thought-out. There are a few important considerations that I think Congress is ignoring here: 1. Writing a law that explicitly adopts a 3rd party's definition of something as a legal definition is always a bit shaky. It's one thing to write your own definition that's heavily based on an existing one, or even just to copy a definition wholesale, but to have the law be "we will use x organization's definition of this term" leaves the law very open-ended. Most obviously, that organization's definition can change - IHRA even labels it a "working definition". What happens if the definition changes in such a way that it no longer reflects the intent of the lawmakers? Additionally, because the lawmakers did not write the definition that they are using, it must be considered that the definition being adopted is actually the lawmakers' [I]interpretation [/I]of a definition that's been written by someone else. That may or may not line up with the intent of the actual writers. 2. Tying into that, as stated by one of the original writers of the IHRA working definition of antisemitism, it was never intended to be the foundation of any sort of legal statute or as a way to control speech. The problem with quieting speech is that it allows those who are affect to cry persecution - especially in a country that prides itself on freedom of speech like the US. 3. The IHRA definition includes sections that cover criticism of Israel. While they do state that "criticism that could reasonably be levied against other countries cannot be considered antisemitism", that's a nebulous enough statement that it could have a chilling effect on speech - for instance, they say that comparisons of Israel's government to Nazis (i.e. in their treatment of Palestinians) is antisemitic, but similar comparisons can and have been reasonably made towards other governments in their treatment of minority groups. Similar bills have been attempted a few times over the past decade or so, and they've all failed - primarily due to freedom of speech concerns. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Pro-Palestinian supporters at Columbia University confront Jews ‘to push them out of camp’
Top
Bottom