House Bill Restricts Free Speech, Again

Proposed legislation by State Representative Alan Clemmons, Chairman of the House Rules Committee, in an attempt to “define anti-semitism” for the State Human Affairs Commission in limiting criticism of Jews and the State of Israel actually curtails the free speech of Americans in general, and South Carolinian’s in particular. House Bill 5287 includes in its verbiage the “definition of anti-Semitism adopted on May 26, 2016, by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance“. The past indicates that when a bill with definition is entered into the law books it is passed in to other laws and agencies.

That language and definition would limit the free speech of all Americans who live and travel through South Carolina if passed. In 2015, South Carolina became the first state in the nation to pass a bill to make Jews a protected group. In an interview with The Post and Courier, Clemmons stated in 2015 that the bill was an “important step forward in protecting the civil rights of Jewish students” in SC. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, already prohibits discrimination “because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”

Clemmons and Senator Larry Grooms came back in 2018 for another step to make it illegal to criticize the State of Israel. The legislation, proposed in 2018 by Rep. Clemmons, was rejected by lawmakers, but later inserted into the State budget by Sen. Larry Grooms.

Legislation similar to this Bill has already resulted in US citizens being deprived of employment and denied contracts in the United States, in violation of Constitutional law, for refusing to sign a loyalty oath to the State of  Israel. This is eerily similar to speech prohibitions in Europe where hefty prison sentences already occur in Germany and other European countries simply for questioning the State Israel and many of the exact items listed in H5287.

An example of this censorship was recently observed in neighboring Georgia where Journalist and filmmaker Abby Martin was refused work due to her not signing away her free speech rights guaranteed by the US Constitution. Martin has since filed suit against the State of Georgia for discrimination and free speech violations.

Former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Ronald Reagan and associate editor and columnist at The Wall Street Journal, Paul Craig Roberts recently wrote, “The ubiquitous censorship that today is characteristic of the United States has shut down comedians. It has shut down criticism of non-whites, homosexuals, transgendered, feminists, and Israel. Official explanations are shielded by labeling skeptics “conspiracy theorists.” The ubiquitous censorship in the United States is an extraordinary development as the Constitution guarantees freedom of expression and a free press.”

 

SC CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE I, SECTION 2. Religious freedom; freedom of speech; right of assembly and petition. The General Assembly shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government or any department thereof for a redress of grievances. (1970 (56) 2684; 1971 (57) 315.)

 

The question comes to mind: Why would Rep. Clemmons or anyone be afraid of someone’s opinion or facts presented? Why would someone be so fearful or afraid of having a discussion with someone who differs on what constitutes the truth or opinion? Or, is there someone or something behind the scenes pushing for this legislation to pass?

The West Bank is unsettled and fuels heated discussion on both sides of the issue.

Passage of H5287 will prohibit free and normal discussion of news and conversational topics due to “offended” immature and uninformed listeners. It will deny freedom of the press to publish and discuss issues of the day which just might include the State of Israel, the holocaust, the West Bank, racial tensions in Israel, Jewish students, Judaism, etc. These are all topics which will suddenly become a violation of law if H5287 passes.

The General Assembly shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech or of the press — SC Constitution Article 1, Section 2

Professor of mathematics, Joshua Cooper, who works at the University of South Carolina at Columbia, is recorded in Al Jazeera saying he opposes the law not only because it stifles free speech and academic debate, but also because it violates the values of his Jewish faith. He said, “The law will chill free speech on campus when a robust debate is desperately needed,” he said.

Cooper, is also a member of the Academic Advisory Council of Jewish Voice for Peace. He added that, as a Jewish person, he does not want to be identified with Israel when it commits human rights abuses and continues to occupy Palestinian territories. “The bill identifies Jews with Israel. As a Jew, I don’t want to be associated with Israel’s human rights abuses,” Cooper said.

Also recorded in Al Jazeera was Barry Trachtenberg, director of the Jewish studies program at Wake Forest University. He teaches a course on anti-Semitism. He said there should be clear distinctions between “actual anti-Semitic hatred” and legitimate criticism of Israel.

Trachtenberg argued the legislation would actually reinforce anti-Semitic hatred against Jews, not decrease it.

“It is my sense that such laws are more likely to exacerbate anti-Semitism rather than combat it for they reinforce the notion that Jews are an exceptional people who require laws that pertain only to them,” he said.

“Speech that is racist, ethnically motivated, or discriminatory may be legal in the US, but it must be opposed by all concerned with freedom, equality, and human rights. Speech that questions Israel’s founding principles, policies, and actions is entirely legitimate.”

Certainly, every citizen does not agree with what foreign countries do, or what their citizens do or say, or what  adherents to their particular religion do, say or believe. SC citizens deserve better than a bill limiting our rights.

The Jerusalem Post reported in January 2018, that Gov. Henry McMaster called upon the SC state senate to “pass a law that would make South Carolina the first US state to codify a universal definition of antisemitism.” The 2018 bill passed in the SC House of Representatives by a 103-3 vote, with 115 of the 124 state representatives co-sponsoring it.

An interesting aside was reported in The Nerve in December 2014. The report said that Clemmons influenced fellow legislators from 2008 through 2014 with campaign donations in the form of “men’s neck ties and women’s scarves” which he presents to “House members and staff.” The Nerve further stated that “Clemmons paid a total of $29,297 from his campaign account to the Milano Neckware Fashion Co. in Taipei, Taiwan, for the clothing…”

House Bill 5287 already has 114 co-sponsors as of March 12, 2020. The bill currently is in the Judiciary Committee waiting to be voted on before heading to the House floor for a final vote.

The Jerusalem Post reported in 2018, that Clemmons was “honored by the Israel Allies Foundation, Knesset Christian Allies Caucus and the World Jewish Congress” at a night honoring Israeli allies at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in Jerusalem.

The Jerusalem Post also reported that Joe Sabag, US director for the Israel Allies Foundation, said “The Israel Allies Foundation is proud to have provided key policy support for the antisemitism bill.” Sabag added that the  Israel Allies Foundation was “grateful to Rep. Alan Clemmons” and they were looking forward to “celebrating a groundbreaking public policy victory in South Carolina.” Sabag called Clemmons “the world’s greatest pro-Israel legislative champion.”

 

International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance Definition of Anti-Semitism adopted on May 26, 2016

International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) is an intergovernmental body whose purpose is to place political and social leaders’ support behind the need for Holocaust education, remembrance and research both nationally and internationally. The Alliance has 33 members.

The committee on Anti-Semitism and Holocaust Denial called the IHRA Plenary in Budapest 2015 to adopt the following working definition of anti-Semitism:

“Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations:

Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic. Anti-Semitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

Contemporary examples of anti-Semitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

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, demonizing, 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 or Israelis.
• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
• Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

Anti-Semitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of anti-Semitic materials in some countries).

Criminal acts are anti-Semitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property – such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries – are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews.

Anti-Semitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries.

Legislators would like to hear from you on whether or not you want your speech limited or abridged. You may contact your legislator at this link.

 

Michael Reed is Editor of The Standard.

 

 

 

Visit our sponsors on this page.