Should the IHRA defition of antisemitism become US law?

[Churchill]

There are those in US government who seek to pass the Antisemitism Awareness Act (H.R. 1007, S. 558) and make it US law, what do you think of the act and why.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/1007/text

The bill seeks to mandate the IHRA into law

What is antisemitism? | IHRA working definition

What is antisemitism? The IHRA working definition helps governments, educators, and institutions identify and counter antisemitism all over the world.

holocaustremembrance.com

 

[Zincwarrior]

There are those in US government who seek to pass the Antisemitism Awareness Act (H.R. 1007, S. 558) and make it US law, what do you think of the act and why.

You might want to provide more color on what that is.

 

[lg325]

The bills H.R. 1007 and S. 558, known as the Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2025, are currently pending in Congress.

• H.R. 1007 was introduced on February 5, 2025, and is currently pending before the House Judiciary Committee.
  
  1
• S. 558 was introduced on February 13, 2025, and is pending before the Senate HELP Committee.
  
  1
• Both bills aim to establish a definition of antisemitism based on the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's (IHRA) definition, which has raised concerns about its implications for free speech and civil rights.
  
  2
• The bills have bipartisan support but have faced opposition due to concerns that they could restrict protected political speech and undermine existing civil rights laws.
  
  2
  As of now, these bills have not been enacted into law, and their future status remains uncertain.
• 
  
  
  
  
  
  3 Sources

 

[Zincwarrior]

I find 10 to be boorish, offensive, and an autoloser by the persons stating it. Making it illegal though is problematic, depending on what the bill applies to. .

What is antisemitism? | IHRA working definition

What is antisemitism? The IHRA working definition helps governments, educators, and institutions identify and counter antisemitism all over the world.

holocaustremembrance.com

1. Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
2. 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.
3. Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
4. Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
5. Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
6. Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
7. Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
8. Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
9. Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
10. Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
11. Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

 

[lg325]

I am all for protecting jews or anyone else from violence and discrimination but to stop any citizen from expressing an opinion is setting a precedent that all opinions can be subject to being ruled as illegal. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled screaming fire in a theater when no fire exist is not free speech. To me that ruling covers the concerns and IHRA definition of Anti- Semetisim. I do not believe the new law is needed.

 

[Natural Citizen]

The SCOTUS would shoot this down quicker than you can blink.

And make no mistake, it'll be taken that far.

But...at least we are being clearly shown who really hates America for its freedoms.

That foreign lobbyists have infiltrated the American congress to the extent that the blatantly unconstitutional legislation has 85 co-sponsors also illustrates who precisely will throw the constitution under the bus if the money is right.

And let's be perfectly clear. If they get an inch, they'll try to take a mile. First they will go after your first amendment. Then your second amendment. Then your fourth amendment. All in the name the illusion of hurt feelz. Well...that and the good old fashioned anti-American connivery that has become so observably rabid.

 

[rosends]

The first amendment has never been absolute. There are already restrictions on speech and some have even less clarity in terms of definition. Why does this bother people more than any other supposed infringement?

 

[Churchill]

The first amendment has never been absolute. There are already restrictions on speech and some have even less clarity in terms of definition. Why does this bother people more than any other supposed infringement?

Is that a Yes or No to the question posed by the thread?

 

[Zincwarrior]

Is that a Yes or No to the question posed by the thread?

I should answer the thread since I posted. No I do not support. I do support higher education being free to expel persons who attack other students or violate student conduct policies, but thats best handled by the school or, if a public school, by state guidelines.

 

[rosends]

Is that a Yes or No to the question posed by the thread?

it is neither. It is an observation.

 

[rosends]

I should answer the thread since I posted. No I do not support. I do support higher education being free to expel persons who attack other students or violate student conduct policies, but thats best handled by the school or, if a public school, by state guidelines.

What if the state guidelines are the IHRA definition? Is your concern about making it federal, or about using it as a measuring rod on any level?

 

[Augustine_]

I find 10 to be boorish, offensive, and an autoloser by the persons stating it. Making it illegal though is problematic, depending on what the bill applies to. .

What is antisemitism? | IHRA working definition

What is antisemitism? The IHRA working definition helps governments, educators, and institutions identify and counter antisemitism all over the world.

holocaustremembrance.com

1. Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
2. 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.
3. Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
4. Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
5. Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
6. Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
7. Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
8. Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
9. Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
10. Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
11. Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

11 is problematic for zionists since it would make them all antisemites

 

[rosends]

11 is problematic for zionists since it would make them all antisemites

I'm a Zionist and number 11 doesn't bother me, nor does it make me an anti-Semite.

Would you care to explain your claim?

 

[MisterBeale]

I'm a Zionist and number 11 doesn't bother me, nor does it make me an anti-Semite.

Would you care to explain your claim?

Because, it contradicts number 10.

If eleven is is defined as antisemitism, then it follows that 10 can't be antisemitism.

 

[MisterBeale]

The first amendment has never been absolute. There are already restrictions on speech and some have even less clarity in terms of definition. Why does this bother people more than any other supposed infringement?

If you aren't aware of how the restrictions on the first have nothing in common with this, you aren't very educated.

Such a law has already been ruled unconstitutional.

Hate speech and the Supreme Court | Law | Research Starters | EBSCO Research

<p>Hate speech refers to expressions that incite or promote hatred, violence, or discrimination against individuals or groups based on attributes such as race, religion, or sexual orientation. The Supreme Court of the United States has navigated the complex intersection of hate speech and the...

www.ebsco.com

 

[Augustine_]

I'm a Zionist and number 11 doesn't bother me, nor does it make me an anti-Semite.

Would you care to explain your claim?

Because zionists conflate any criticism of Israel with criticism of Jewish people

 

[rosends]

Because, it contradicts number 10.

If eleven is is defined as antisemitism, then it follows that 10 can't be antisemitism.

here are the two items, each serving as an example of anti-semitism:

10. Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
11. Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

how does either one relate to the other?

 

[Shusha]

11 is problematic for zionists since it would make them all antisemites

#11 simply calls for the distinction between the Jewish ethnic identity and the Israeli nationality and national identity.

 

[MisterBeale]

here are the two items, each serving as an example of anti-semitism:

10. Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
11. Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

how does either one relate to the other?

If Jews are not collectively responsible for the actions of Israel, then number ten has nothing to do with Jews. Thus, it can't possibly be antisemitism to compare Israel, or hell, any nation's government policies for that matter, as any form of bigotry.

Are you logic circuits that fried? Really?

 

[Shusha]

Because zionists conflate any criticism of Israel with criticism of Jewish people

Not so. It is very easy to distinguish between criticism of Israel, the actions of her current government and Jew-hate. If we are calling it Jew-hate, it is because you are not actually criticizing Israel and her government's actions. Do you want examples?