Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Adam H. Kerman" Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Subject: Re: the Republican anti-anti-Semitism on college campuses bill Date: Fri, 3 May 2024 18:44:37 -0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 68 Message-ID: References: <20240502174315.00006c52@example.com> Injection-Date: Fri, 03 May 2024 20:44:37 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f218b21c30c481ecce87b79e12d0cdde"; logging-data="730651"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/XtjQIVOXdLLGFemcvhqfRBHul2t3UNPU=" Cancel-Lock: sha1:+Ea/Lo4Fv81USAn/n7W/2i1Y194= X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010) Bytes: 4023 BTR1701 wrote: >Rhino wrote: >>Thu, 2 May 2024 17:37:44 -0000 (UTC) Adam H. Kerman : >>>I'm trying to figure out if I support the legislation that passed the >>>House yesterday defining anti-Semitism and requiring the Department of >>>Education to use the definition to determine whether a university has >>>failed to take action against anti-Semitism. Department of Education >>>may be required to cut federal funding for universities found to be >>>disriminating. >>>Anti-Semitism is an expression of thought. The definition, which >>>includes in its definition of anti-Semitism the criticism of Israel >>>that tends to apply uniquely to Israel and no other nation on earth, >>>is possibly a reasonable one. >>>The incidents of speech can certainly be labeled as anti-Semitic, >>>along with incidents in which threats, intimidation, vandalism, and >>>violence have occurred. >>>Is the legislation requiring universities to shut down protests or >>>punish those participating in the protests if there is no finding that >>>the speech also included threats and intimidation? >>>. . . >>>The bill's sponsors stated that the bill includes language that does >>>not thwart criticism of the government of Israel. I'm not sure. The >>>anti-Semitic criticism of Israel they are trying to thwart could be an >>>expression of anti-Semitism (under the definition) and may not be an >>>attempt to threaten or intimidate. It's possible to be anti-Semitic >>>without making a death threat. >>>These are my concerns. I haven't thus far found concerns stated by >>>Democrats who opposed the legislation to be all that specific to >>>concerns they claim to have over the potential for free speech to be >>>stifled. >>Yet somehow I feel sure the Democrats would be EXTREMELY unhappy if any >>new law limited the right of their precious "progressive" students from >>being as anti-Israel/anti-Semitic as they wanted to be. >>>Even if Republicans supporting this legislation have the moral high >>>ground -- and they do appear to -- I don't want speech stifled. >>A worthy goal! >>>Even those students supporting Hamas might have been represented by >>>David Goldberger to protect their civil right to free speech, in the >>>olden days in which the ACLU represented Kluxers and neo-Nazis so that >>>the rest of us might speak freely. >>That was then, this is now. My perception is that the ACLU has morphed >>beyond recognition into a hard-core anti-capitalist left wing group of >>advocates. >Matt Walsh summed up my thoughts on the bill and the absolute inability of >Republicans to take a win without cocking it all up: >https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5FadIjHlYcM&t=608s I watched the entire video. He persuaded me. >There's no way I'll support anything that gives foreign governments the >ability to set the limits of acceptable speech in America. I had no idea that this organization had governmental members till he explained who they were.