Law House passes antisemitism bill that will target free speech and criticism of Israel

[Senzo Tanaka]

While I'm against any sort of hate speech laws.. I don't think college campuses should allow KKK and/or Nazi rallies either. People can do their hate shit somewhere else.

If anybody took the time to read the definition that is being adopted--they'd know it has nothing to do with criticizing Israel.

Then you are for hate speech laws. College campuses are typically publicly funded. If there's a Nazi rally, you hold a counter anti-Nazi rally. That's how this works. Silencing people is never the answer.

This is why the ACLU was so special. They fought to allow Nazis the right to protest while simultaneously saying how much they disagreed with the message but knew that silencing any speech was wrong.

Jerry Springer of all people had to deal with it while was Mayor and delivers a fantastic monologue on it here:

 

[Jack V Savage]

I'm not attributing beliefs. I'm going by actual people all over social media and in news articles sayin stuff like that.

You don't see how it doesn't make sense? If there were no difference, you wouldn't be able to tell them apart and they wouldn't need their rights protected.

 

[Bia]

but can you still criticize Zionism?

 

[HereticBD]

Then you are for hate speech laws. College campuses are typically publicly funded. If there's a Nazi rally, you hold a counter anti-Nazi rally. That's how this works.

That's how it used to work(and should work), but that's not the case anymore. Tell me, if these encampments were of the hard right wing persuasion with Trump flags and whatnot, do you think there would be a "conversation" over whether or not they were lawful and threatening to other students? Not a fucking chance. Their tents would be ripped down before the first spike hit the ground. Governors and officials would proudly be on tape denouncing them and calling for their dismantling, rather than hiding and operating in the shadows like they're doing now.

That's the problem right now. The leftists just ran into their own asses. The very people that were promoting this unbridled "disruption of the system" ran into an iceberg called Israel. Now their big boy "allies" have to be the bad guys.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

Bill Text - AB-957 Family law: gender identity.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/61/text

https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ13/PLAW-117publ13.pdf

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/1086

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/937/text

https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2023-24/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Passed%20Legislature/5427-S.PL.pdf?q=20240329072834

The Matthew Shepard And James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes Prevention Act Of 2009

www.justice.gov

Hate crimes bill passes the Michigan House; Republicans voice concerns over speech

The bill passed the Michigan House in a 59 to 50 vote on the heels of disturbing threats made against an East Lansing synagogue.

www.cbsnews.com

Let's see-

The first one: deals with parents' right to gender affirmation. Zero to do with freedom of expression.

The second one: deals with designation of "hate crime" if publishing white supremacy material WHILE planning, perpetrating or developing criminal acts. The publishing of white supremacist material itself isn't criminalized.

The third one: deals with giving state and federal agencies a greater ability to designate certain crimes as hate crimes. Zero to do with freedom of expression.

The fourth one: A subsection of number three above. Zero to do with freedom of expression.

The fifth one: An HTML version of number three above. Zero to do with freedom of expression.

The sixth one: deals with the establishment of a hotline to report hate crimes. Doesn't expand what hate crimes are, just makes reporting hate crimes easier. Zero to do with freedom of expression.

The seventh one: broadens the ability to prosecute against hate crimes. In fact, it specifically mentions that it doesn't expand the criminality of threats- The statute does not criminalize threats of violence. Threats to inflict physical injury may be prosecutable under other hate crimes statutes, such as 42 U.S.C. § 3631 or 18 U.S.C. § 245.

Thanks for wasting my time. None of these do what you claim they do. Seems like you just googled all the things right-wingers loathe: trannies, any recognition of hate crimes, and decided to dump them here.

And of course, zero banning of border crossing criticism like you claimed.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Let's see-

The first one: deals with parents' right to gender affirmation. Zero to do with freedom of expression.

The second one: deals with designation of "hate crime" if publishing white supremacy material WHILE planning, perpetrating or developing criminal acts. The publishing of white supremacist material itself isn't criminalized.

The third one: deals with giving state and federal agencies a greater ability to designate certain crimes as hate crimes. Zero to do with freedom of expression.

The fourth one: A subsection of number three above. Zero to do with freedom of expression.

The fifth one: An HTML version of number three above. Zero to do with freedom of expression.

The sixth one: deals with the establishment of a hotline to report hate crimes. Doesn't expand what hate crimes are, just makes reporting hate crimes easier. Zero to do with freedom of expression.

The seventh one: broadens the ability to prosecute against hate crimes. In fact, it specifically mentions that it doesn't expand the criminality of threats- The statute does not criminalize threats of violence. Threats to inflict physical injury may be prosecutable under other hate crimes statutes, such as 42 U.S.C. § 3631 or 18 U.S.C. § 245.

Thanks for wasting my time. None of these do what you claim they do. Seems like you just googled all the things right-wingers loathe: trannies, any recognition of hate crimes, and decided to dump them here.

And of course, zero banning of border crossing criticism like you claimed.

Predictable outcome, but good work. I bet he didn't even read them himself.

 

[djacobox372]

Then you are for hate speech laws. College campuses are typically publicly funded. If there's a Nazi rally, you hold a counter anti-Nazi rally. That's how this works. Silencing people is never the answer.

This is why the ACLU was so special. They fought to allow Nazis the right to protest while simultaneously saying how much they disagreed with the message but knew that silencing any speech was wrong.

Jerry Springer of all people had to deal with it while was Mayor and delivers a fantastic monologue on it here:

I agree with you mostly... but the constitution protects people from prosecution not from consequences. Police officers are publicly funded, yet an officer can still be fired for offensive speech.. fired, not jailed.

But I get you.. frankly I'd be more keen to focus on the disruption caused by protestors and not the speech their using... but this is the real world, and there's a difference between political speech and speech that is being used to create a disruption and incite unrest and violence.

The constitution grants the right for people to PEACEFULLY assemble, and you can't with a straight face tell me that screaming the N word into a crowd of black students, or pro-Nazi slogans into a crowd of Jewish students is a "peaceful" act. The definition of antisemitism in the criticized law is exactly this--it does not have anything to do with political stances against Israel or Zionism.

What we all should be more concerned with is bs. headlines--like this one that says that the legal definition in question has anything to do with criticizing Israel. They are taking advantage of the laziness of the reader, and it's on purpose. Ask yourself why someone would write a whole article about how the law is forcing the definition of antisemitism to align with the IHRA, while at the same time not telling it's readers what that definition actually says? Do people really think that omission is just an oversight? They alluded in the headline that it's about criticizing Israel, which is a lie, and in order to maintain that deception they must omit the actual factual information and just hope that their readership won't be dilegent.

 

[tastaylvr]

I guess the kkk rally’s are still good to go though

 

[Lord_Impaler]

WTF is this hard on American politicians have for Israel, it’s truly baffling.

 

[Loiosh]

WTF is this hard on American politicians have for Israel, it’s truly baffling.

Having an ally in the Middle East?

 

[nostradumbass]

Let's see-

The first one: deals with parents' right to gender affirmation. Zero to do with freedom of expression.

The second one: deals with designation of "hate crime" if publishing white supremacy material WHILE planning, perpetrating or developing criminal acts. The publishing of white supremacist material itself isn't criminalized.

The third one: deals with giving state and federal agencies a greater ability to designate certain crimes as hate crimes. Zero to do with freedom of expression.

The fourth one: A subsection of number three above. Zero to do with freedom of expression.

The fifth one: An HTML version of number three above. Zero to do with freedom of expression.

The sixth one: deals with the establishment of a hotline to report hate crimes. Doesn't expand what hate crimes are, just makes reporting hate crimes easier. Zero to do with freedom of expression.

The seventh one: broadens the ability to prosecute against hate crimes. In fact, it specifically mentions that it doesn't expand the criminality of threats- The statute does not criminalize threats of violence. Threats to inflict physical injury may be prosecutable under other hate crimes statutes, such as 42 U.S.C. § 3631 or 18 U.S.C. § 245.

Thanks for wasting my time. None of these do what you claim they do. Seems like you just googled all the things right-wingers loathe: trannies, any recognition of hate crimes, and decided to dump them here.

And of course, zero banning of border crossing criticism like you claimed.

Lol, what exactly is a "hate crime" and how would they show something was a "hate crime" as opposed to just a regular offense? Dunno, but it's "zero to do with expression". And obviously having your kids taken away for not "affirming their gender identity" has nothing to do with "gender opinions". Derp. You could have just said upfront "I don't care and won't accept it when it's shoved right in my face anyway" and saved everybody the time.

 

[PhitePhan]

Having an ally in the Middle East?

With friends like these…

Israel Flagged as Top Spy Threat to U.S. in New Snowden/NSA Document​

Israel Flagged as Top Spy Threat to U.S.

Israel was identified by the NSA as a security threat in several areas, including "the threat of development of weapons of mass destruction"

www.newsweek.com

 

[aerius]

Having an ally in the Middle East?

Claiming Israel is an ally is like saying Russia is a friendly democracy.

 

[Loiosh]

With friends like these…

Israel Flagged as Top Spy Threat to U.S. in New Snowden/NSA Document​

Israel Flagged as Top Spy Threat to U.S.

Israel was identified by the NSA as a security threat in several areas, including "the threat of development of weapons of mass destruction"

www.newsweek.com

Claiming Israel is an ally is like saying Russia is a friendly democracy.

I didn't say it was right, I stated the declared motive.

My understanding of geopolitics is primitive and illusory at best. I grew up with the same propaganda most of us in the west did.

Anyone else have a more accurate statement? Military industrial complex and all the politicians on both sides backed by those interests?

 

[Lucas1980]

Then you are for hate speech laws. College campuses are typically publicly funded. If there's a Nazi rally, you hold a counter anti-Nazi rally. That's how this works. Silencing people is never the answer.

This is why the ACLU was so special. They fought to allow Nazis the right to protest while simultaneously saying how much they disagreed with the message but knew that silencing any speech was wrong.

Jerry Springer of all people had to deal with it while was Mayor and delivers a fantastic monologue on it here:

Jerry...Jerry...Jerry...Damn I used to love that show...guilty pleasure.

 

[aerius]

I didn't say it was right, I stated the declared motive.

My understanding of geopolitics is primitive and illusory at best. I grew up with the same propaganda most of us in the west did.

I'd suggest keeping your mouth shut until you have a better understanding. I don't talk about religion for the same reason, I don't know shit about it so anything I say is pretty worthless and only clogs up or derails the discussion.

Anyone else have a more accurate statement? Military industrial complex and all the politicians on both sides backed by those interests?

You know that "friend" who keeps getting drunk, harassing girls, starting fights, and then drags you and everyone else in to bail his ass out when he starts getting his ass kicked? And then he says it ain't his fault, his shit don't stink, and everyone's just persecuting him? That's Israel.

 

[Zazen]

Israel is a very special and good boy. They’re just America Jr. - a normal country doing very normal things and I’m sick of college brats being mean to them.

More like we are Israel Jr. It seems the have more power than our own government does. Look at how Netanyahu talks about the colleges in America. He is the one acting like he gives the commands while Biden is asleep in his office. Fucking ridiculous. The most powerful country on Earth is a cuck.

 

[Loiosh]

I'd suggest keeping your mouth shut until you have a better understanding. I don't talk about religion for the same reason, I don't know shit about it so anything I say is pretty worthless and only clogs up or derails the discussion.



You know that "friend" who keeps getting drunk, harassing girls, starting fights, and then drags you and everyone else in to bail his ass out when he starts getting his ass kicked? And then he says it ain't his fault, his shit don't stink, and everyone's just persecuting him? That's Israel.

I do know that's what they say, and you'll notice I added a question mark. Was I wrong? Do they not say that?

And why are you so confident in your claim? Is there a reason you shouldn't keep your mouth shut?

 

[Zazen]

Ben Shapiro and Matt Walsh to their credit say they are opposed to this bill.

Bullshit, this is damage control after the Candace fiasco. Look at their actions, not their words.

 

[kflo]

I'd suggest keeping your mouth shut until you have a better understanding. I don't talk about religion for the same reason, I don't know shit about it so anything I say is pretty worthless and only clogs up or derails the discussion.



You know that "friend" who keeps getting drunk, harassing girls, starting fights, and then drags you and everyone else in to bail his ass out when he starts getting his ass kicked? And then he says it ain't his fault, his shit don't stink, and everyone's just persecuting him? That's Israel.

Sounds more like Hamas and other terror groups in the ME.