Lawmakers in three U.S. states are pushing for new bills to define and combat antisemitism, sparking debates about free speech and introducing complicated world politics into state law. The push comes in response to a global rise in antisemitism and concerns about the line between criticism of Israel and hatred towards Jewish people.
Democratic Rep. Esther Panitch, one of the sponsors of Georgia’s recently passed bill, cited the Oct. 7 attacks by Hamas as an example of how anti-Zionism can cross into antisemitism. Supporters argue that it is crucial to have a clear definition to determine when criticism of Israel becomes discriminatory towards Jews. However, critics believe that adding a legal definition may infringe on free speech rights, particularly for young Jews who hold anti-Zionist views.
Similar measures using the same definition of antisemitism are being considered in Indiana and South Dakota. While supporters argue that more than 30 states have already adopted some form of the definition, opponents worry that it could suppress critiques of Israel and limit freedom of expression.
Several organizations, including Jewish Voice for Peace and CAIR, released a joint statement arguing that equating critiques of Israel and Zionism with discrimination against Jewish people is false. They believe that the legislation could potentially stifle free speech and hamper activism around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
While many entities worldwide have recognized the definition of antisemitism, including the U.S. State Department and major companies, the U.S. Congress and American Bar Association have declined to do so. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has also expressed concerns about these bills, stating that they infringe on the First Amendment by silencing viewpoints.
Supporters of the bills emphasize that their goal is not to ban speech but to differentiate between acts of discrimination or hate crimes, which have different consequences under the law. They argue that these bills address actions rather than limiting free speech.
Critics worry that these laws could potentially elevate certain charges, such as property destruction by protesters, to the level of hate crimes if the perpetrator is seen with a Palestinian flag. They believe that the definition could lead to the cancellation of events related to Palestinian culture or speakers due to concerns about being labeled antisemitic.
The issue of antisemitism on college campuses has also been a point of contention, with discussion surrounding how colleges can prevent or address it. Last year, congressional testimony from campus presidents led to the resignation of presidents at Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania.
As the bills continue to progress through legislative chambers, the debate over defining antisemitism will likely intensify. The outcome will have significant implications for free speech, how Israel is criticized, and the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
