Last week the Georgia legislature held its first hearing on HB30, which fills a gap in Georgia’s existing antidiscrimination laws by providing officials with a standard definition of antisemitism -- the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition -- to be considered when assessing unlawful discriminatory conduct.
It is necessary because today antisemites commit horrific acts of discrimination against Jewish people, then hide behind the lack of a definition to avoid accountability. Members heard testimony from and about constituents who were personally affected by the current lack of a legal standard. They heard directly from children who were terrorized in their local Georgia public school, with swastikas and death threats, who were then gaslighted and told by administrators that what they were experiencing was not antisemitism. This bill would help protect these children and others like them.
Lawmakers also heard about an Atlanta university student who was viciously harassed this year because her classmates decided to hold her, an innocent American Jew, personally responsible for actions of the state of Israel they disliked. Her school was not sure if harassing a Jew with even the mildest connection to Israel was antisemitic or merely political in nature. This bill would help that student and others like her, because holding Jews collectively responsible for the actions of other Jews, or of the Jewish state, in order to unlawfully discriminate against them, is antisemitic.
Despite its broad bipartisan support -- the same bill passed the House last year 141-19 -- there has been some disinformation purposefully spread about this draft legislation, so it is important to clarify some things:
First, HB30 does not criminalize anything. It does not criminalize hate speech or criticism about Jews or about Israel. It does not limit or chill criticism of Israel or of Jews. The bill has nothing to do with protected free speech.
This is a fact, and not a matter of opinion; the text of the bill is available for any and all to read. It only addresses discriminatory acts and hate crimes committed against Jewish people. Unlawful discriminatory conduct can range from illegal hiring, firing, or housing decisions, to hate crimes and discriminatory harassment. None of that is protected under the First Amendment. If there was any remaining uncertainty (which there isn’t) the bill explicitly reiterates that it cannot infringe on any First Amendment rights.
HB30 does not even criminalize hate crimes against Jews. Those are already illegal. All it does is ensure that when analyzing the intent behind illegal discriminatory actions, when there is an allegation that the person chose their target because of anti-Jewish animus, authorities consider the world’s most well-accepted definition of antisemitism as rebuttable contextual evidence of the motive behind their actions. A unanimous Supreme Court in Wisconsin vs. Mitchell (1993) held that when it comes to evaluating discriminatory actions “The First Amendment does not prohibit the evidentiary use of speech to prove motive or intent.” The Court also said that doing this does not chill speech; that is just how antidiscrimination laws work.
Second, the bill does not create any new protected class or special category for Jewish people. Antisemitic discrimination is already unlawful, as a form of racial, ethnic, national origin, and/or religious discrimination. Practically speaking though, studies show that roughly half of all Americans do not know what antisemitism means, and that over 85% of Americans believe at least one anti-Jewish trope. These numbers explain why authorities have had so much trouble enforcing existing law without a definition. This bill guarantees that the rules will be applied consistently and not arbitrarily. It doesn’t create any new protections; it solves an existing equal protection problem.
Which leads to the last important clarification. Despite what opponents of HB30 might claim, the bill does not in any way protect Israel; it only protects Jews.
The IHRA definition clearly states that criticism of Israel, like any other country, is not antisemitism. It also includes some examples of anti-Zionism that can, sometimes, cross the line into antisemitism: For example, holding Jews collectively responsible for the actions of the Jewish state. Regardless of how you feel about the IHRA definition generally, or how it could theoretically be used in other contexts, this bill does not limit antisemitic speech! This bill only uses the IHRA definition to assess antisemitic motives behind already unlawful conduct. The problem is that Jews, even those who do not support Israel, are often targeted for discrimination because antisemites hold them accountable for a perceived connection to the Jewish state. When a person attacks a Chinese American because they hate China, everyone understands that this is race/ethnicity-based discrimination. When a person attacks a Jewish American because they hate Israel, all too often people say that it might just be “political” and not anti-Jewish. This bill would help protect those people.
This past Saturday, a group of antisemites once again littered several predominantly Jewish neighborhoods around Atlanta with flyers that demonized Jews, Judaism and Jewish culture. To be clear -- this bill would not affect the ability of those antisemites to spread their hateful message, because HB30 is not about banning or limiting speech. But incidents like this make it clear why this bill is absolutely necessary -- because there are obviously hateful bigots out there who are not shy about their intentions. HB30 lets them speak, but it would hold them accountable if they should then act, God forbid, on their antisemitic motivations. Note that opponents of the bill are not asking for the ability to continue criticizing Israel -- this bill has nothing to do with speech and they have every right to say whatever they want about Jews or the Jewish state. They are asking for the ability to continue attacking and discriminating against Jews because of their hatred for either, without being labeled antisemitic.
There are countless examples like the ones above of cases in which having a definition could have protected innocent Jewish people in Georgia from acts of unlawful discrimination. HB30 would not solve antisemitism, but it would concretely fix that problem, and unless anyone is planning on committing unlawful discriminatory acts, this bill should not trouble them at all.
Dr. Mark Goldfeder, esq., is director of the National Jewish Advocacy Center in Atlanta.
About the Author
