Protecting the Vile for the Sake of the Virtuous

By: Lisa Van Houten

“If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”  That warning from George Washington is one we must heed as the freedom of speech is once again being eroded by those who took an oath to protect it.

Most Americans are shocked by the blatant anti-Semitism on American college campuses.  We’re horrified by the increasingly violent pro-Hamas, anti-Israel riots and hate-filled rhetoric, as Jewish students are harassed, blocked from attending class, and generally fear for their lives.  Not only have these protestors violated their schools’ codes of conduct with impunity, they’ve called for the extermination of the Jewish people – and the university leadership does nothing to stop these overt calls for violence.  Threats and intimidation are not protected speech.

In response to this chaos, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed the “Antisemitism Awareness Act” (AAA) on a bipartisan vote of 320-91.  It now heads to the Senate.  The bill is intended to crack down on anti-Semitism on America’s campuses.  On the surface, this sounds like a great piece of legislation worthy of support and I’m sure that many who voted for it desired to respond to the disgusting actions and hatred on college campuses.  Let me be very clear:  the Jew-hatred spreading on our nation’s campuses and tacitly condoned by neo-Marxist university leadership should be unequivocally and forcefully condemned.

However, as the saying goes, the devil is in the details.  This bill is essentially a hate speech bill. It attempts to define anti-Semitism (more on that below) and orders the Department of Education (DOE) to enforce restrictions on anti-Semitic hate speech on college campuses. This is the same DOE, which just re-wrote Title IX forcing schools to allow biological males to have access to girls’ locker rooms and sports, that will now be in charge of policing speech.  What could go wrong?

Typically, in today’s political climate, when a bill garners such strong support from both Republicans and Democrats something is rotten in Denmark – or in this case, D.C.

We’ve been down this path before.  Knee-jerk reactions often lead to future consequences that few foresee.  In 2001, just 45 days after 9/11, Congress rushed to pass the innocuously-named Patriot Act.  Yet the Patriot Act is one of the most anti-American bills ever passed and is still in effect today.  The Patriot Act gives federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies sweeping power to spy on American citizens, without getting a probable-cause warrant as the Fourth Amendment requires.  These government agencies can now obtain access to your emails, online activity, and purchasing history; conduct warrantless “sneak and peak” searches; and track your communications and travel.  The Patriot Act also requires banks to notify the FBI of all deposits made over $10,000.   There’s not much I agree on with the ACLU these days, but back in 2001 the ACLU warned of the very real and unconstitutional infringements upon our freedom that the Patriot Act ushered in.  But like sheep, the vast majority of Americans have been silent as we’ve now become a “surveillance state” – including the increasing use of facial recognition.

The Antisemitism Awareness Act has been described as today’s Patriot Act.  While well-meaning, the poorly thought out and vague language of this bill could be used as precedent for the infringement of the freedom of speech and religious liberty. As theologian Al Mohler points out, many conservative Christians and Christian organizations, who are some of the most stalwart defenders of Israel and the Jewish people, are also greatly concerned about how this legislation will be applied, not just on campuses, but also by the courts.

This legislation adopts the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of antisemitism and directs the DOE to use the IHRA definition in investigating violations of the 1964 Civil Rights Act in regards to antisemitism.  The Civil Rights Act already “prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin” – which would include antisemitism. Therefore, it seems unnecessary to add language that is both vague and concerning regarding potential future abuses.

The IHRA is a respected organization; however, as a foreign entity, it shouldn’t be the basis of creating a definition of antisemitism that doesn’t align with the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment.  The IHRA definition of antisemitism, which the AAA has now incorporated, 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.”

Do you see what I mean by vague?  What exactly is “a certain perception?” And if this applies to both Jewish and non-Jewish individuals, wouldn’t that be everyone?  As Rep. Harriet Hageman (R -WY) cautions, “By using the definition of antisemitism from a foreign non-governmental organization, the bill attempts to criminalize what someone’s ‘perception’ of another person might be, which is a clear violation of the First Amendment.  The bill also incorporates some of that organization’s examples of expressions of objectionable antisemitic opinions, which again, while I find them offensive, would obviously be considered Constitutionally protected speech.”

One of the potentially problematic examples of what the IHRA, and now the AAA bill, includes: “Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.”

On the surface, I wholeheartedly agree that the examples mentioned above are anti-Semitic.  The news has been replete with disgusting examples of campus rioters demonizing and dehumanizing Jews.  Yet, the examples given here are not actions or threats. Threats and violent acts are not protected by the First Amendment.  However, the First Amendment does protect speech, no matter how detestable it is.

In addition, the last part of that language from the legislation could be used to charge someone with antisemitism for criticizing, for example, George Soros, who is Jewish by birth, neo-Marxist by ideology.  Soros has used his massive wealth to implement cultural Marxism, seeking to radically transform America.  It’s not a conspiracy theory. Soros has financed the elections of leftist candidates, including Secretaries of State, who undermine election integrity.  He’s also the driving force behind radical district attorneys, including NY prosecutor Alvin Bragg, who refuse to prosecute vast numbers of criminals leading to the rash of crime in American cities.  George Soros, a Jew, is also helping to fund these anti-Jewish campus protests.  Yet the liberal Anti-Defamation League claims those who criticize Soros are anti-Semitic. So, will criticism of Soros now be considered hate speech?  As the Western Journal opines: “Because, if we’ve learned one thing about college administrators over the past month, it’s not the militants in keffiyehs shouting anti-Jewish slurs they’re going to go after if given additional powers to police anti-Semitism, it’s going to be the College Republicans’ speaker who makes a reference to a “Soros-funded DA.”

The IHRA’s, and now the AAA’s, guideline of what is considered anti-Semitic is so broadly defined, that certain passages of the Bible could be interpreted as hate speech. The language adopted from the IHRA includes: “Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.”

Shamefully, Christians throughout history have twisted the meaning of Scripture to wrongfully cast blame on all Jews for the death of Jesus. Christians have been responsible for horrific discrimination and harassment of Jews.  Those who understand the Bible know that Jesus’ sacrificial death was God’s sovereign plan and that Jesus laid down His life willingly – no one took it from him. (John 10-15-18)  However, in numerous passages the apostles Peter and Paul address the complicity of Jews of their day in the death of Christ and the denial that He is the promised Messiah. (Acts 2:22-23, Acts 3: 14-15, Acts 4:10, Acts 5:30, Acts 7:52, I Thessalonians 2:14-16) These passages in no way apply to all Jews and Jews of our time, but were only in reference to those specific Jewish elders who plotted against Christ. However, these passages, under the definition of the AAA, would be considered anti-Semitic.  As such, this legislation, as Albert Mohler points out, could be “used and abused by the cultural left in the name of fighting anti-Semitism, when quite frankly, it is going to be an instrument to be used against Christian preaching.”

Anti-Semitism is abhorrent and should be condemned wherever it rears its ugly head.  And when anti-Semitic speech involves threats to Jewish people it must be prosecuted to the full extinct of the law.  However, the way to combat anti-Semitism is not a hate speech bill that polices what one can and cannot say.  Silencing someone doesn’t stop the hatred in the heart.  To combat hatred, we need more speech, not less, to confront their bigotry.

While well-intentioned, the Antisemitism Awareness Act could have far-reaching implications, setting the precedent to chill any speech the government doesn’t approve of. Just recently, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson lamented that the First Amendment was an obstacle “hamstringing” the government.  One day it could easily be Christians whose speech is criminalized for speaking out against LGBT ideology.

When we hear such hate-filled rhetoric such as what’s taking place on campuses, it’s a natural reaction to say, “that should be illegal.”  However, the principle of free speech is to protect the most offensive, abhorrent speech, for if that isn’t protected, anyone’s speech can be restricted.  As the famous quote says: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Allowing the government to determine what speech is and isn’t allowed is a dangerous, slippery slope.  Any limit on free speech is another step toward tyranny.

As Benjamin Franklin stated: “Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government.  When this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on its ruins.”

 

To view this article in your browser, Click Here

For more information, articles and newsletters, please check out our website at https://americandecency.org/

You can support ADA financially by visiting: https://give.cornerstone.cc/americandecency

 

---