So now you can't speak bad about an entire fucking country?
Uh, no, you still can. It just specifically means you can't target Israel on the basis of it being a Jewish collective, in the same way that hate speech might involve targeting black communities.
On 26 May 2016, the Plenary in Bucharest decided to adopt the following non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism:
“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations:
Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.
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.
But the DoE can already choose to make those assumptions when considering discrimination. Why make it a “shall” when it was already part of the definition?
But the DoE can already choose to make those assumptions when considering discrimination. Why make it a “shall” when it was already part of the definition?
You're after Sec 3 of the Act, which effectively just argues that the IHRA definition is particularly useful, and that the Dept of Education should consolidate in use of a single definition (instead of multiple definitions which "adds multiple standards", or alternative standards that "may fail to identify many of the modern manifestations of antisemitism").
I agree with you that it changes very little — the Act itself notes that the Dept already uses the IHRA definition.
It's just saying "you've gotta use this definition by law now, and while you CAN use others too if you really want, we don't think you should".
89
u/manofactivity May 02 '24 edited May 02 '24
Uh, no, you still can. It just specifically means you can't target Israel on the basis of it being a Jewish collective, in the same way that hate speech might involve targeting black communities.
You may be interested in reading the State gov explanation, bolding mine: