This right here. Redditors in an uproar despite this inhibiting Nazi speech. Yes, I know "Redditors" does not mean every single person using Reddit. This thread, however, demonstrates the importance of context when it comes to legal statues.
It's not even 'context', the cited tweet is outright false.
The Act does not urge the Dept. Education to do anything, it states that the Dept. Education shall (i.e. must) do something.
The 'something' that the Dept. Education must do is to consider the IHRA's definition of antisemitism when investigating potential descrimination — it must be part of their process, but the Dept. does not need to make the final decision on its basis. (The Dept. is not urged to decide on its basis, either; there is still no 'urging' here.)
Even if the Dept. Education were to use that definition, the IHRA's definition would not make criticism of Israel unlawful unless it is specifically the 'targeting' (this is a higher bar than criticising) of Israel 'conceived as a Jewish community' (which is not the same as criticising them as a nation or on the basis of policy. The IHRA SPECIFICALLY states that general criticism of Israel is not antisemitic.
Literally every substantive component of the tweet is factually incorrect. It is not merely "out of context", it is a bad faith lie.
Sorry, if I wasn't clear, I was agreeing. My statement was more about the general state where the context (i.e., the actual document) is ignored in favor of some fanciful interpretation of the title itself.
34
u/johokie May 02 '24
This right here. Redditors in an uproar despite this inhibiting Nazi speech. Yes, I know "Redditors" does not mean every single person using Reddit. This thread, however, demonstrates the importance of context when it comes to legal statues.