Wave of bills defining antisemitism in US state houses spark free speech debate
Supporters of bills codifying IHRA definition say it’s crucial to determine when criticism of Israel crosses line to Jew hatred, while critics say it is used to censor debate
Lawmakers in more than a half-dozen US states are pushing laws to define antisemitism, triggering debates about free speech and bringing world politics into statehouses.
Supporters say it’s increasingly important to add a definition that lays out how to determine whether some criticism of Israel also amounts to hatred of Jewish people. In so doing, lawmakers cited the October 7 massacre, in which Hamas terrorists killed some 1,200 people in Israel, mostly civilians, and took 253 hostages to Gaza.
“For anybody that didn’t think that anti-Zionism could cross into antisemitism, the rest of the world could see that it had,” said Democratic Rep. Esther Panitch, the only Jewish member of Georgia’s Legislature and one of the sponsors of a bill that the state body passed last week. Republican Gov. Brian Kemp is expected to sign.
Defined in 2016 by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, 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.”
But Kenneth Stern, the author of IHRA’s definition, said using such language in law is problematic.
“There’s an increasingly large number of young Jews for whom their Judaism leads to an anti-Zionist position,” said Stern, director of the Bard Center for the Study of Hate. “I don’t want the state to decide that issue.”
Over the past three months, there has been a rise in protests around the United States calling for a ceasefire in Gaza — in effect, saying Israel must stop the offensive it began with the goal of toppling the Hamas regime there and removing the longstanding threat posed by the terror group. A coalition of organizations, including Jewish Voice for Peace and CAIR, issued a joint statement saying that the Georgia bill “falsely equates critiques of Israel and Zionism with discrimination against Jewish people.”
Measures using the same definition of antisemitism in anti-discrimination laws have advanced in legislative chambers in Indiana and South Dakota. Other legislation with the definition is pending in at least five other states this year.
Bill supporters say that more than 30 states have adopted the definition in some way over the years. Before now, the legal definitions — including in New York, the state with the largest Jewish population — came primarily through resolutions or executive orders rather than forceful laws.
In other parts of the country, Iowa incorporated the definition into law in 2022 and Virginia did the same last year, among others.
Lawmakers say their bills are in response to the October 7 attacks, though even before that, the problem of antisemitism has been on the rise in the US and globally. Since the Israel-Hamas war erupted, several states have passed resolutions condemning Hamas and voicing support for Israel.
Thousands of entities around the world, including the US State Department, major companies, and colleges, have officially recognized the definition, with groups including the American Jewish Committee supporting it.
However, the US Congress and the American Bar Association have declined to do so. Among those urging lawmakers to vote no are chapters of the ACLU.
“There is fundamental First Amendment harm whenever the state tries to silence pure speech on the basis of its viewpoint,” said Brian Hauss, an ACLU lawyer.
Backers of the laws emphasize that they’re not trying to ban speech but rather discriminate between actions that amount to discrimination or hate crimes, which carry different degrees of severity.
“This bill is entirely about conduct — adverse or unequal treatment that’s prohibited in state law,” said South Dakota state Rep. Fred Deutsch, a Republican whose father was a Holocaust survivor. “This bill doesn’t limit a person or organization’s freedom of speech or expression.” This week the chamber passed a measure by a 53-14 vote.
Lara Freidman, president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace, said the laws could elevate charges, such as those against a protester for property destruction, to the level of a hate crime if the perpetrator is seen with a Palestinian flag.
Georgia State Rep. Ruwa Romman, a Democrat of Palestinian descent, said that the definition, when adopted by colleges, has stifled students’ right to free speech.
“When they attempted to host a Palestinian poet or Palestinian culture night, the administration has preemptively canceled the events for fears of being antisemitic,” she said.
Some protesters gathered in the capitol in Indiana this month before the House unanimously advanced a bill incorporating the definition there.
“I don’t need to feel like as a student I’m going to be either censored or attacked or harassed,” said Yaqoub Saadeh, president of the Middle Eastern Student Association at Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis.
How colleges are acting to prevent or stop antisemitism on campus has become a hot-button issue across the country. Last year, the fallout from campus presidents’ testimony before Congress led to the resignation of the presidents of Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania.
The Times of Israel Community.