Q&A of the Day – What Florida’s Antisemitism Bill Would Do If Enacted
Each day I feature a listener question sent by one of these methods.
Email: brianmudd@iheartmedia.com
Social: @brianmuddradio
iHeartRadio: Use the Talkback feature – the microphone button on our station’s page in the iHeart app.
Today’s Entry: Hi Brian- I’d like for you to discuss the antisemitism proposal that’s currently being considered by the legislature. How does this differ (if at all) from the proclamations in support of Israel after the Hamas terror attack and previous measures taken in Florida to crack down on antisemitic behavior? I’m in support of Israel and our Jewish communities locally but do worry about potential overreach into areas encroaching on free speech. Thank you.
Bottom Line: It’s a great question as the Antisemitism bill has been one of the quickest movers in the early days of Florida’s state legislative session. It also marks the second time in under a year that the Florida legislature is advancing legislation aimed at curbing antisemitic behavior. You might recall that at about this time a year ago the biggest related issue throughout Florida, and South Florida where the largest Jewish populations are located specifically, were regularly distributed pamphlets expressing hate for Jews within Jewish communities – in addition to the projection of antisemitic images on buildings. In explaining what the current proposal would do that’s different than what last year’s law did when it took effect, let’s start by revisiting what changed under the law passed in last year’s session:
Florida’s antisemitism law took effect May 1st last year and did the following:
- Prohibits a person from intentionally dumping litter onto private property for the purpose of intimidating or threatening the owner, resident, or invitee of such property;
- Prohibits a person from willfully and maliciously harassing, threatening, or intimidating another person based on the person’s wearing or displaying of any indicia relating to any religious or ethnic heritage;
- Creates a new prohibition against displaying or projecting, using any medium, an image onto a building, structure, or other property without the written consent of the owner of the building, structure, or property;
- Creates a new trespass offense if a person who is not authorized, licensed, or invited willfully enters the campus of a state college or university for the purpose of threatening or intimidating another person, and is warned by the institution to depart and refuses to do so; and
- Prohibits a person from willfully and maliciously interrupting or disturbing any assembly of people met for the purpose of acknowledging the death of an individual.
As for what’s in this year’s proposal – let’s start with what the summary analysis of the bill states:
- Florida law currently codifies a definition of “anti-Semitism” in s. 1000.05(8), F.S., relating to the identification of discrimination in K-20 public education, which closely mirrors the IHRA working definition of antisemitism. However, the definition does not apply generally to all sections of Florida law and thus is not applicable in identifying and reporting other instances of discrimination or incidents of hate crimes.
- HB 187 creates s. 1.015, F.S., to define “antisemitism” based on the working definition developed and adopted by the IHRA as – a certain perception of Jewish individuals which may be expressed as hatred toward such individuals. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish and non-Jewish individuals and their property and toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities – and to provide contemporary examples of antisemitism.
A couple of notes here. The IHRA that’s referenced for the definition of antisemitism is the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance and most Floridians likely aren’t aware that antisemitism has effectively only been defined under Florida law as it pertains to education at all grade levels, however not in other aspects of our society which obviously would change should this become law. As for the contemporary examples of antisemitism, or in other words the behaviors that could be considered illegal in certain circumstances if used to harm Jewish individuals are defined as these under this legislation:
- Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
- Making mendacious, dehumanizing, 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.
- 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.
- 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).
- Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
- 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.
- 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.
- Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
- Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g. claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel and Israelis.
- Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
- Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
As is noted in the bill’s analysis, over the prior three years, the number of hate crimes resulting from one’s religion in Florida more than doubled with Jews as the largest target – and that was prior to the Hamas terror attack on Israel and subsequent war. Free speech concerns are always valid when a government is considering the adoption of policy focused on what’s potentially “illegal speech”. On that note, there are two important considerations that come into play. The first is about “free speech” itself. While the 1st Amendment protects freedom of expression it isn’t absolute. Most know this at some level – the old expression that “you can’t yell fire in a crowded movie theater” has long been the example provided. But for the ease of conversation the way I’ve always put it is like this. Generally, you can’t legally use your right of expression to harm others. And that takes us back to what the proposed legislation in Florida would change. By defining antisemitism, it doesn’t inherently make it illegal for someone to say for example that they hate Jews, or to deny the holocaust or even to display swastikas. However, what it would do is clearly define what constitutes antisemitism under Florida law which would raise offending behavior to “hate crime” status under Florida law which comes with stronger penalties for perpetrators. Should the bill be signed into law it would take effect July 1st.