A bill that would broaden the definition of antisemitism stalled in Congress as members debate its free speech implications. Republicans are trying to push the Antisemitism Awareness Act through Congress for the second year in a row, but they have even less momentum this time around because the college protests that fueled the 2024 support for the act have simmered down.
Supporters of the bill said it’s necessary to protect the civil rights of Jewish students after protests on college campuses in 2024 left some Jewish students feeling threatened or unsafe.
“Chasing Jewish students into a room, pounding on the door and threatening them with violence is wrong. That is not free speech,” Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La, said. “Preventing a student from going to class, any student, because of their religion or ethnicity, is wrong. That is not free speech. That is harassment, intimidation, and should not be tolerated.”
But opponents of the bill warned it was too broad, saying that it would criminalize speech that criticizes Israel’s government or its policies, even if those criticisms aren’t hateful, extreme or religious in nature.
“One can criticize the government of Israel, government of any country on earth for their policies, and that does not make them antisemitic or hateful of the people in any of those countries,” Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., said. “The people of the United States of America have the right to criticize any government on earth for their policies.”
The bill, if enacted, would codify the definition of antisemitism adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance in 2016.
That definition states: “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 that definition, critics said, would criminalize free speech that has historically been protected.
“In fact, if you look at Brandenburg vs. Ohio, the operative case on [the] First Amendment, every one of these things – the First Amendment isn’t about protecting good speech. It protects even the most despicable and vile speech,” Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said. “Brandenburg was a Nazi and an antisemite and he said horrible things. And the First Amendment, Constitution and the Supreme Court ruled that you can say terrible things. That’s unique about our country.”
The bill would also adopt the examples given by the definition as the official legal guidance for prosecution under the Civil Rights Act. Those examples include:
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination. For example, claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor.
Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
“It is not antisemitic to speak out against the extremist Israeli government for not allowing a single shipment of aid to Gaza in two months, 62 days and counting. It is not antisemitic. It is the truth,” Sanders, who is Jewish, said.
In May 2024, the bill passed the House with strong bipartisan support in the wake of pro-Palestinian protests at college campuses around the country.
“I believe deeply in speech, in free speech, but I also believe that it’s really important that all students feel safe, and that students aren’t threatened with violence,” Rep. Josh Gottheimer, D- N.J., said in May 2024. “And that’s been the problem at a lot of these campuses right now, is that students that I’ve met with don’t feel safe.”
The Senate, which at the time was controlled by Democrats and then-Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., did not approve the bill.
This time around, it is stalled in the Senate again, even though the upper chamber is now controlled by Republicans. In the House, multiple Democrats who supported it last year say they won’t vote for it again.
