US government vs. "antisemitism"

[Madison320]

The civil rights act didn't criminalize speech. It didn't even stop all racial discrimination. It stopped racial discrimination in public accommodations. (Businesses that serve the general public). You can still have your all white country club if you want. It wasn't until 1990 that the PGA quit having tournaments at country clubs that discriminated against blacks and that was due to public outcry and calls for boycotts of PGA sponsors, and not by government action.

I reject the idea that a business that "serves the public" is not private property. I agree with the parts of the civil rights act that apply to government but not private property.

I don't like the bill, but I don't think it changes anything.

 

[PAF]

I reject the idea that a business that "serves the public" is not private property. I agree with the parts of the civil rights act that apply to government but not private property.

Calling [MENTION=2727]devil21[/MENTION]

 

[Invisible Man]

From : https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-vote-antisemitism-bill-campus-arrests-rcna150170

"Speech that is critical of Israel or any other government cannot, alone, constitute harassment," ACLU leaders wrote in a letter last week urging lawmakers to oppose the measure.

The letter pointed in part to an example of antisemitism included in the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's definition, which says antisemitism could include "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."​

Do you remember the video where Candace Owens defendant herself against a Rabbi who was calling her antisemetic? He went so far as to say that even Jews who criticize Israel are antisemitic. What law do you know of that tries to prevent anyone from criticizing black people? Certainly not the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

That relates to how the act defines antisemitism. But the act doesn't ban antisemitism. So I don't see what that proves.

 

[jmdrake]

I reject the idea that a business that "serves the public" is not private property. I agree with the parts of the civil rights act that apply to government but not private property.

You're fine to have your own opinion but not your own facts. You don't have to agree with the Civil Rights Act but you shouldn't mis-characterize what it does. It doesn't do what you said it does College students regularly said racist things on campus well into the 21st century. And even now when students get in trouble on campus for being racist it's not the federal government coming down on them but rather campus honor codes.

 

[Invisible Man]

What law do you know of that tries to prevent anyone from criticizing black people? Certainly not the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

None. Nor am I aware of any law that tries to prevent anyone from criticizing Jews. Including the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act.

 

[jmdrake]

That relates to how the act defines antisemitism. But the act doesn't ban antisemitism. So I don't see what that proves.

The civil rights act doesn't even address racist speech.

 

[Invisible Man]

The civil rights act doesn't even address racist speech.

But it addresses discrimination based on race. And racist speech can be used as evidence that someone discriminated based on race.

 

[jmdrake]

I don't like the bill, but I don't think it changes anything.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/co...ing-antisemitism-israel-hamas-gaza-rcna146674

The legislation would also require federal agencies to submit a report to Congress detailing their implementation of the strategy, enabling oversight authorities to identify and recommend new, better ways to counter the spread of antisemitism — including online.

It would specifically direct the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security and the National Counterterrorism Center to produce an annual threat assessment of violent extremism directed at Jews.

And it would demand that the Federal Emergency Management Agency administrator ensures the agency has sufficient resources and personnel needed to support places of worship, community centers and nonprofit organizations with physical security enhancements via the Nonprofit Security Grant Program.

The bill would also formally establish the month of May as “Jewish American Heritage Month” in federal law.​

If you don't think the FBI being directed to target people who call Israel racist changes anything....well I can't even take such an opinion seriously.

 

[jmdrake]

But it addresses discrimination based on race. And racist speech can be used as evidence that someone discriminated based on race.

And saying "I want to murder X" can be used as evidence that you indeed murdered X. This bill directs the FBI to investigate people for merely criticizing Israel! Not at all the same thing.

 

[Invisible Man]

This bill directs the FBI to investigate people for merely criticizing Israel!

Can you quote the part of the bill you're alluding to here? I can't find that.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/6090/text?

 

[Madison320]

You're fine to have your own opinion but not your own facts. You don't have to agree with the Civil Rights Act but you shouldn't mis-characterize what it does. It doesn't do what you said it does College students regularly said racist things on campus well into the 21st century. And even now when students get in trouble on campus for being racist it's not the federal government coming down on them but rather campus honor codes.

I was talking about discrimination laws against private businesses. Isn't that part of the civil rights act?

 

[jmdrake]

I was talking about discrimination laws against private businesses. Isn't that part of the civil rights act?

I'm talking about the FBI being directed to investigate people based on nothing but their speech. That is not part of the civil rights act but it IS part of the Anti Antisemitism Awareness Act.

 

[jmdrake]

Can you quote the part of the bill you're alluding to here? I can't find that.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/6090/text?

From your link:

SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this Act, the term “definition of antisemitism”—

(1) means the definition of antisemitism adopted on May 26, 2016, by the IHRA, of which the United States is a member, which definition has been adopted by the Department of State; and

(2) includes the “[c]ontemporary examples of antisemitism” identified in the IHRA definition.
​

Criticizing Israel is part of the current definition of antisemitism by the IHRA.

 

[PAF]

I was talking about discrimination laws against private businesses. Isn't that part of the civil rights act?

Generally, customers of public accommodations such as restaurants, movie theaters, and gas stations are protected by federal law from discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin or other protected status. Federal law also provides that all citizens have equal rights to make and enforce contracts. These rights are guaranteed by Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

Retail stores are a gray area, however, because federal courts have held that retail shopping is not a “public accommodation” and browsing in a store doesn't normally invoke the right-to-contract provision. While many states have passed anti-discrimination laws similar to or more stringent than federal laws, Texas is one of a handful of states that relies solely on the federal anti-discrimination provisions of the civil rights law. This means retail stores in Texas are probably not prohibited by state or federal law from engaging in discriminatory practices.

https://www.brazoslawyers.com/discrimination-private-business-legal-illegal
​

 

[Invisible Man]

From your link:

SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this Act, the term “definition of antisemitism”—

(1) means the definition of antisemitism adopted on May 26, 2016, by the IHRA, of which the United States is a member, which definition has been adopted by the Department of State; and

(2) includes the “[c]ontemporary examples of antisemitism” identified in the IHRA definition.
​

Criticizing Israel is part of the current definition of antisemitism by the IHRA.

Where does it say anything about the FBI investigating anybody for that?

This strikes me as essentially no different than a resolution with no impact on the law at all. It's just politicians passing a law to express an opinion that has no teeth to it.

 

[Madison320]

Generally, customers of public accommodations such as restaurants, movie theaters, and gas stations are protected by federal law from discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin or other protected status. Federal law also provides that all citizens have equal rights to make and enforce contracts. These rights are guaranteed by Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

Retail stores are a gray area, however, because federal courts have held that retail shopping is not a “public accommodation” and browsing in a store doesn't normally invoke the right-to-contract provision. While many states have passed anti-discrimination laws similar to or more stringent than federal laws, Texas is one of a handful of states that relies solely on the federal anti-discrimination provisions of the civil rights law. This means retail stores in Texas are probably not prohibited by state or federal law from engaging in discriminatory practices.

https://www.brazoslawyers.com/discrimination-private-business-legal-illegal
​

All of those laws are a violation of the property rights of the owners. Those laws are some of the worst laws on the books. They deprive owners of their property, they make thought a crime, and they have the opposite effect of their intent.

 

[PAF]

All of those laws are a violation of the property rights of the owners. Those laws are some of the worst laws on the books. They deprive owners of their property, they make thought a crime, and they have the opposite effect of their intent.

Yep. I didn't imply otherwise. I'm just not sure what to make of this:

There's no difference, however what anarchists don't understand is that there's no other option. There's always going to be a "state", "mafia", "warlord" presiding over a given area. Government is force and force is not going away anytime soon.

 

[Madison320]

I'm just not sure what to make of this:

???

 

[jmdrake]

Where does it say anything about the FBI investigating anybody for that?

This strikes me as essentially no different than a resolution with no impact on the law at all. It's just politicians passing a law to express an opinion that has no teeth to it.

You're right. It doesn't specifically mention the FBI. That said the impact of the law that you linked to is that it allows criticism of Israel to be used as prima fascia evidence of discrimination. Under the 1964 CRA having posters of Hitler all over the office could be seen as creating a hostile work environment. Under this bill a company taking a stand against what's happening in Gaza could be seen as creating a hostile work environment.

 

[PAF]

???

lol, think about it for a while ;-)