Florida To Impose Sweeping Anti-Semitism Ban On Florida Schools

Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis is reportedly planning to travel to Israel and use the trip to sign a bill that imposes a sweeping anti-Semiticism law that raises serious free speech implications. Florida and other states are enacting a bill being duplicated through the country that would ban statements that “making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as a collective.” I have previously raised my concerns over the curtailment of free speech from such laws as well as bans on support for boycotts of Israel. While courts have struck down the boycott laws, supporters are still trying to curtail speech under ill-defined hate speech models. Recently, the Israeli ambassador to the United Nations called for an international ban on anti-Semitic speech.

The bill passed the Florida House 114-0. a wide array of commentary in all state-funded institutions of higher education. The language raises many of the same free speech problems of the earlier boycott models. The bill prohibits discrimination, which is unassailable. However, it is the definition of anti-Semitism that raised the free speech concerns:(a) Examples of anti-Semitism include:

(a) Examples of anti-Semitism include: 

1. Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews, often in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion. 

2. Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as a collective, especially, but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions. 

3. Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, the State of Israel, or even for acts committed by non-Jews. 

4. Accusing Jews as a people or the State of Israel of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust. 

Spreading “myths” or raising “imagined wrongdoing” defies meaningful limitations. It is equally difficult to draw limits around such ambiguous terms like “Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations.”

As is often the case, the speech limits were passed in the aftermath of a great tragedy of the shooting in California at a synagogue. With such a tragedy, no politician would want to be deemed as not supporting the victims or the cause of fighting anti-Semitism. Free speech remains an abstraction in the wake of such suffering and anger. However, people of good faith must be willing to risk such criticism to raise our concerns over speech regulations and criminalization.

We have seen such hate speech laws used throughout the world to strip away free speech protections. Over the course of the last 50 years, the French, English and Germans have waged an open war on free speech by criminalizing speech deemed insulting, harassing or intimidating. We have previously discussed the alarming rollback on free speech rights in the West, (here and here and here and here and here and here and here) and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here). There are encroachments appearing in the United States, particularly on college campuses. Notably, the media celebrated the speech of French President Emmanuel Macron before Congress where he called on the United States to follow the model of Europe on hate speech.

Worse yet, there is a rising generation that has been taught that hate speech does not deserve free speech protection and that speech codes are necessary to combat unwanted speech.

We will lose our free speech protections unless we have the courage to stand up for these values, even when those being protected are the least sympathetic members of our nation. We could not need the First Amendment to protect popular speech. However, if we turn away at these critical moments, we will soon find ourselves in the same downward spiral as Europe where speech codes have created an insatiable appetite for more and more limits.

78 thoughts on “Florida To Impose Sweeping Anti-Semitism Ban On Florida Schools”

  1. Killing thousands of childrens and peoples is not kind behaviour of isreal ….and at last to hide truth by banning anti-semitism wooww ….what a great independent and freedom of country …. that’s the only way satanic and killing of mass will be held under this law…..

    1. There are good and bad in all ethnicities but… Have you ever seen a jew jitsu?

  2. If we codify laws to demolish freedom of speech, we lose so much. Political correctness and “intersectionality” demand we neuter our speech and continually have to anticipate that someone will take offense at anything we say – and we must legally care about it.
    Can’t even have show tunes, damn it.

  3. The rot in the center of this law is

    “a. Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews, often in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.”

    which, while it could refer to Christian Identity or other neo-Nazi churches, is almost certainly a slap as Islam as Reps. Tlaib and Omar understand it.

    If we react to any evil ideology by dismantling the Bill of Rights, our enemies have won an incredible victory, because our soldiers, sailors and airmen go out and die to protect those rights. We can’t disassemble those rights to send a message.

    I propose an alternative. Every state house considering passing this law ought instead to pass the following resolution:

    “We reserve our deepest contempt to those members of the US House of Representatives and US Senate who abuse their positions to further hateful ideologies of any sort, or to make apologies for such conduct.” Short, sweet and to the point. And perfectly Constitutional.

  4. Why are Zionists losing control in the USA, resulting in laws like this FL masterpiece of a turd?

    Zionist infiltration of and brainwashing within “Christianity” is the primary reasons Americans wrongly allow and approve of pro-Zionist, illegal military excursions in the mid east. Without said illegal brainwashing (it’s illegal because the US breaks the law, allowing Isareali-financed groups to do it without registering as foreign agents), Americans would not be so wedded to Israel and would not allow unending foreign illegal military excursions in the ME.

    This brain washing started with Scofield’s so-called “Refererence Bible” of the late 19th-early 20th C, the first ever Bible commanding stupid, gullible SBC (Southern Bible Conference) Baptists to believe that the future coming modern Israel was the fulfilment of the OT. Scofield wrongly interprets this verse “I shall bless those who bless thee, and I shall curse those who curse thee,” to command Baptists to die for and give indefinite wealth for the then-future coming State of Isreal.

    I know because at least one SBC church prints this vs. atop every single Sunday bulletin. Any and all SBC churches forbid any member to believe otherwise. Go ahead and call your nearby SBC hell hole and find out right now. Ask the “Pastor” (no one else), “Can I join the SBC if I deny affirmatively and aggressively that modern Israel is the fulfilment of the OT?” He’ll hem and haw like the liar he is but he’ll eventually admit “NO!”

    If you want to know why Americans approve of illegal foreign military excursions, look no further than the SBC and Scofield. Scofield was a convicted thief with no literary education, who deserted his family (Scripture says such person is “worse than a non-believer.”) Yet the Judaic controlled Oxford Press hired this literary midget to allegedly pen the first “Reference Bible.” Prior to this hiring, Oxford’s policy was to not publish prior-un-published authors.

    Oxford has edited Scofield’s Bible continuously since the first publishing, even since Scofield’s dirt nap, yet Oxford never lists any of the subsequent editors. Oxford hides the editor’s names to continue the farce that Scofield authored the book.

    How easy is it to blow up Oxford’s interpretation? When God the Father spoke those words to Abraham, Isaac was not yet born. Future Isaac later begot Jacob, who’s name God changed to Israel, which name God gave to the land of God’s then-chosen people in Palestine.

    So according to Oxford’s lies, when God said “thee” (you) to Abraham, God referred not to Abraham, but instead God referred to a non-existent nation named after a non-existent descendent two generations hence. And the kicker is that God kept secret from Abraham the code to unlock God’s secret language, yet somehow some convicted crminal with no literary skill who abadoned his family (“worse than an unbeliever”), and no education, unlocked God’s secret code!

    Thus was born Zionist-Christianity and the beginning of the end of Western Christianity. Because of this, the younger the generation the less likely is that generation to believe the classical faith, because its Zionist foundation is sand. The newer and younger the generation, the less steeped is it in Zionist brainwashing in the church, and the more likely is it to take sides against Israel favoring Palestine, resulting in blatantly illegal hate speech laws like the turd which is the subject of this article.

    1. People favor Israel because it’s a well-governed and accomplished country with a great deal of affinity for the United States. Ordinary people have ordinary sensibilities. You are a gargoyle and have quite distorted and disfigured impulses, but fancy you are normal.

      1. Please explain why the US must give $5B annually to one of the richest nations on earth, which money Israel uses to buy American military weapons, not to solve world hunger as you’d have stupid goyim believe.

        Again, notice the binary choice: give unspecified blood and wealth to Israel or you are just another Hitler.

        1. Uh, look at your own remark. $5 billion in foreign aid is not a big spend. That amount of money paid to a country of strategic importance and they turn around and buy american weapons with it? sounds like a good deal for the US perhaps have you ever considered that? think of it as a rebate LOL

          and compare it to a similar amount they pay the Egyptians for kind of the same thing and who also buys US arms


          Princess: don’t be simple minded

          i believe you also overstate the significance of Christian dispensationalism or whatever it’s called

          1. Perhaps you spit on the words of General Eisenhauer, who warned us of the MIC/military industrial complex, the same as you spit on GW’s words that “all foreign entanglements are temporary.” If such persons who do the above are not morons, what are they?

            Israel’s importance and contribution to the USA’s security equals zero. If Israel is so critical to the USA’s security, how did the US flourish for 1.7 centuries prior to the US and the League of Nations inventing modern Israel out of thin air by simple threat of the use of military force?


            1. Kurtz, Trohar doesn’t know her history. Things and even friendships change radically over a decade. 1.7 centuries ago Britain ruled the seas so her question about the US flourishing was quite ignorant. I can understand one not liking American foreign aid or America involving itself in foreign affairs and wars but that really isn’t Trohar’s concern for she specificallly targets Israel. What about our troops abroad at many tens of Billions. No she doesn’t concern herself with those expenditures or the expenditures to all the Muslim nations, only Israel. When one focuses so diligently on one group there is generally a bias. In this case it could be anti-Semitism.

              1. I am on the side of George Washington Re. his words which apply to Israel and every single foreign nation: “no permanent foreign entanglements.” You spit on GW’s advice.

                Anyone who justifies use of the word “anti-Semite” must, by definition, agree there is such thing as “anti-goyim,” which defines every single person who tosses around the Anti-Semite claim.

                Anti-Semite: “not someone who hates Jews, but rather someone hated by certain Jews.”

                It is Israel who has a law that forbids any male Palestinian from citizenship. But I’m sure all Israel firsters would deny this makes Israel “anti-Palestinian,” another or many reasons most ME neighbors hate Israel and want it to disappear.

                Anyone who supports the law which is the subject of this article is Anti-American, Anti-Constitution, anti-freedom, anti-democracy, and an Israel-First Zionist.

                When an Israel-firster/Zionist has lost the argument, they trot out the debate ending epithet, “anti-Semite.”

                AFAIK, a Judaic working in FDR’s State Dept. invented the term to gin up interest in WW2, which resulted in the death of approximately 100 million innocents.

                If the “6 million dead Jews” in the holocaust is accurate, how do Zionists explain the fact that Zionists started publishing the same exact story of “6 million dead Jews” continuously from 1915 to 1938: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJ2X8UWHOjY

                Zionist-Israel-firsters: who you gonna believe, ME or your LYING EYES?

                Notice: whenever the USA desires to keep bad news hidden, they just slap on the “national security” stamp. When Judaics demand goys hear only Zionist approved versions of history, they criminalize “holocaust denial” for “national security of Jews.”

                Anything that is allegedly so transparently true such as the holocaust does not need to criminalize denial of said history.

                1. “I am on the side of George Washington ”

                  Trohar, you are on the side of nothing but your own hateful rhetoric. The country instead of being a new and fragile nation is now the strongest in the world so things have changed but little has changed in your mind as evidenced by what you say. If you were true to your ideals your comments would not be directed to Israel alone but to isolationism and pulling back troops and money from all the other nations. You are lying.

                  “Anyone who justifies use of the word “anti-Semite” must, by definition, agree there is such thing as “anti-goyim,” “

                  It’s hard for a small population to be anti-anything or at least anti enough that they have an impact. This idea in your head sounds like an excuse for anti-Semitism which is further demonstrated when you say “Anti-Semite: “not someone who hates Jews, but rather someone hated by certain Jews.”

                  You don’t know the laws of Israel based on what else you wrote in your response. You are totally ignorant. Arabs are on the Israeli Knesset and the Israeli Supreme Court. How many Jews occupy prominent positions in the Palestinian leadership or in any of the nations that surround Israel? Zero. But you single out Israel and no one else, another sign of ignorant anti-Semitism. Once again I have to wonder about how you feel towards our minorities like blacks and Hispanics.

                  “When an Israel-firster/Zionist has lost the argument, they trot out the debate ending epithet, “anti-Semite.”

                  No, as I have proven above it is not a matter of Israel first rather it is a matter of intolerance and anti-Semitism. You are a hater and demonstrate that in almost every sentence you write. I am an American and I believe in toleration. You and all your racist friends are an abomination to the country I love.

          2. Among others, boy genius/war mongers extraordinaire John Bolton and son of Bolshevik Bill Kristol lead Bush and Cheney to invade Iraq based on security services lies Re. WMD (no security employee was disciplined for the egregious error). Since that invasion, is the USA more or less secure in the world?

            It should be immediately outlawed for any dual-citizen Israeli like Michael Chertoff to work for the US government. No one can serve two masters. Chertoff is a member of Chabad Lubavitch, the most hated, caustic, and fastest growing branch of Judaism. Why is it the fastest growing branch of Judaism? Because those who refuse to join are black listed and risk losing their ability to earn a living.

            1. Irving Kristol belonged to a Trotskyist discussion circle at City College of New York ca. 1939. He abandoned Trotskyism in 1942 and at no time during a looong public career advocated anything particularly unconventional in an American context.

              Michael Chertoff is the son of a Conservative rabbi (https://www.cbibr.org/about-us) and had an ordinary suburban upbringing. He has no affiliation with any Haredi sect except in the imagination of damaged individuals such as yourself. He’s also never lived in Israel.

              1. Thanks for agreeing that MC is a dual Israeli-citizen and member of Chabad Lubavitch, the most caustic and stringent and strict form of Zionist Israeli Judaism. When such dual citizens must chose one master, they chose one master. In MC’s case it is Israel and not the USA.

            2. “those who refuse to join are black listed and risk losing their ability to earn a living.”

              The number of Lubavitch members is so infantessimal that it would be hard for them to deny anyone a job. There are probably less than 100,000 members world wide and most would probably be on the young side. They have lots of children. It’s this type of irrational understanding that breeds hatred.

              Check under your bed tonight Trohar.

              1. Trohar’s understanding of social life seems to drawn from the same well of the imagination that produced the screenplay for Rosemary’s Baby. Except, of course, that the author of that screenplay understood it was fiction.

                1. Thanks for proving you can not deny the veracity of anything I posted. Personal attacks only.

                  1. “the veracity of anything I posted.”

                    Trohar, you haven’t posted anything worthwhile except that you revel in anti-Semitic literature and for all we know are a member of the KKK or any similar hateful organization. Your ignorance completes the picture of who you are, how you live and why one should want you excluded from their lives.

                    1. The notion that the term ‘anti-semite’ was invented by Franklin Roosevelt’s State Department was pretty funny. I’m wondering from which page in the Wacky World of Websites she acquired that factoid.

                  2. You have to cite actual facts for me to deny. Get to work slug.

        2. It’s $3.3 bn, given in the form of credits to buy military equipment from American manufacturers.

          Israel is a moderately affluent country, like Spain (only without Spain’s labor market dysfunction). It is, however, a country with a modest population, like Austria. Total real output in Israel is about 0.25% of the world’s total, and Israel ranks 50th out of about 200 among the world’s countries on this metric.

          You really don’t know much.

      2. Stop being so lazy you pathetic, moronic Israel-first troll. Quote my words and reply with something more useful than calling me Hitler.

        Anti-Semite: not someone who hates Jews, but rather someone hated by certain Jews.

        1. you know, calling people lazy morons is not likely to persuade them of anything. try and engage in a respectful debate if you want results.

        2. Your words, like Natacha’s, are a window into your emotional disorders. Which is momentarily interesting, like large piles of dog manure on the sidewalk.

      3. “People favor Israel because it’s a well-governed and accomplished country with a great deal of affinity for the United States…”

        Israel shows it’s alleged “great affinity for the United States” apparently by authoring and enforcing through intimidation such as the above poster, and through financial force by gifts to Israel firsters, in a foreign nation (the US), a law that spits on the USA’s Constitution. The above author ignores and contradicts, without merit, every single syllable posted by this blog’s owner Turley in reference to this turd of a law.

        This law is an affront to the US Constitution, an attack on it. Every single sympathy of this law has at its intent to burn the Constitution and replace it with Zionist ideology.

        With “great friends” like Israel, who needs enemies?

        Israel firsters demand through financial and physical and verbal and written threat and force, to bring their form of Zionist Judaic theocracy to the USA. If this does not frighten you, you are fool and or naïve. And when the next Israel firster lies, saying, “Israel is the only democracy in the ME.” Ask them exactly how is Israel “democratic” to male Palestinians who are forbidden my Israeli law to be citizens.

        The next time someone makes the pathetic remark that “Israel has a right to exist,” ask them to explain exactly and specifically why and how does Israel have a right that these nations that have been wiped off the map did not have? https://www.thoughtco.com/missing-countries-1435425

        The answer is Israel’s “right to exist” is a figment of Zionist imagination, a meme that stupid gullible goyim swallow whole.

        Not one syllable of the US Constitution commands nor suggests any US allegiance to Israel GW forbade our “permanent bond” with Israel. I’m on the side of GW, Israeli firsters spit on GW’s words.

        I don’t hate Israel. I hate how gullible are American goys who accept Zionist lies whole. I stand with These Rabbis who deplore Israeli Zionism: https://www.nkusa.org/

        1. Princess is apparently a Holocaust denier as well based on a comment she posted a couple of days ago.

          No doubt she’s one of those left wing anti-semites Karen has warned us about.

        2. Trohar fancies the Florida legislature has been half tricked and half intimidated by Jews with their infernal psi-power.


          People addled by schizophreniform disorders often fancy that unseen others are inserting thoughts into their heads.

        3. What I find amazing about the Princess is her tremendous concern over any support given to Israel by the US despite the fact that the US supplies plenty of support to her Arab neighbors that have been enemies or exist as enemies today. Some of that money that she neglects to mention goes to incentivize terrorism so that when a jihadist blows up a school bus in Israel a street can be named after him and the family (frequently mom and dad) are given an annual gift of money that places the family economically at the top of society. Yes, Princess is a rather sordid individual. She singles out Israel. Nowhere is she pointing to US policies which are certainly debatable.

          Where does that money given to Israel go? It can be spent only or almost only on military equipment bought from American providers. Planes are a major example. That equipment is used by Israel and then Israel helps the US modify it making it better. The same equipment has been sent elsewhere even to Israel’s enemies but without the return modifications.

          Has Princess bothered to look at US expenditures around the world? She didn’t mention them but we have tens of thousands of troops all over the world. We spend ten’s of billions probably close to $100Billion on these troops over 150,000 strong stationed among our allies. Israel is also an ally but NONE of our troops have been stationed in Israel or fought in any Israeli war. Despite that and despite the fact that there are no ground troops in Israel, Israel acts as a base for the US in the Mid East much like Japan and South Korea where permanent American troops are stationed. The Princess doesn’t mention these things and only focuses on Israel.

          That is what anti-Semites do, focus negatively on Israel or Jews while excluding all others. Anti-Semites focused on Jews even when no Israel existed. Is the Princess an anti-Semite or simply ignorant? I won’t bother to provide my opinion because that is something for each person to decide themselves.

          Israel has saved many Arab lives in Israeli hospitals where Arabs and Jews share the same ward and the same doctors. Some of those end up attempting to kill the same Israeli’s that saved their lives.

          Then again there is Europe and other portions of the world that also supply billions of dollars that in part is spent on missiles directed at Israel along with money to fund those that blow up school buses within Israel. Some NGO’s from European nations even have the audacity to construct homes in the middle of the night in public parks only to complain the next morning that the Israeli’s are attacking them when closing those homes built just hours before.

          I expect this to fall on deaf Princess ears, but I take note of how her comments are directed against Israel and perhaps Jews rather than the policies that involve other nations as well. I don’t think she has the capacity to cogently argue a point that doesn’t provide us a picture of anti-Semitism. Does her hate extend to blacks and Hispanics? I don’t know but she doesn’t sound like a very nice person.

    2. “the beginning of the end of Western Christianity.”

      Listening to Trohar and her fractured fairy tales is enough to make any happy Christian want to leave the faith, but then there is common sense that lets them see that she is a nutcase.

      1. Then why don’t you better explain why, at this time, a FL governor flies to Israel to sign a blatantly illegal law? Did you miss everything Turley typed?

        Readers: the moment they can, Zionist posters like the above shall enforce laws similar to those in Canada now and Europe: denying Israel-first laws will put you in prison.

        1. “Then why don’t you better explain why, at this time, a FL governor flies to Israel to sign a blatantly illegal law?”

          Trohar, I would gladly do so with anyone that wasn’t playing the part of an anti-Semite. In general I don’t like hate laws but we do not need our schools or our money to go to schools where hate is part of the curriculum or part of the teachers vocabulary.

          Hate laws are not what you are discussing, rather you are discussing laws that only have to do with with Jews in the negative sense and in the process are portraying the actions of an anti-Semite.

        2. The law is inane, Trohar, but it’s an inanity which has the unanimous support of the Florida legislature. Complain to them. It’s not the first time a state legislature did something foolish and it won’t be the last.

          You believe in magic Jews. Because you’re a crackpot.

    3. It’s interesting how a convincing simulation of late-stage rabies in a human can still cogently argue for freedom of speech in mid-rant.

      But freedom of speech is a given, and as the Professor points out, “res ipsa loquitur” The need for freedom of speech is so self-evidenct that (paraphrasing the Gospels) the very stones shout it out.

      We can’t tell anyone to STFU in the name of democracy.

      1. I just realized I to whom I was addressing this remark open. The successful simulation of a late-stage rabies patient was that fountain of anti-Southern Baptist and anti-Jewish vitriol, Princess Trohar.

  5. “4. Accusing Jews as a people or the State of Israel of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.”

    In Canada and approximately 17 Nations in Europe (including of course the Israeli vasal State of Germany), persons are imprisoned for violating a law exactly as above.

    Coming soon to the US as a Federal law. “That which you can not criticize is your God.” If you want to know why IsraHELL is the most hated nation on earth, look no farther. Re. IsraHELL how much better it would be to obey G. Washington’s advice in his Farewell Address, “…all foreign entanglements are temporary…”

    Jesus Soetoro Obama and HRC specifically spat on GW’s advice when they called our relationship with Israel “permanent.”

    Don’t waste your breath, I’m not pro-Palestinian (not that it would matter if I was). I just want IsraHELL to make it’s own way, or disappear into the trash heap of history, as happens ALL THE TIME (Google “nations that disappeared”).

    The notion that any nation including IsraHELL has a right to exist is just another crock invented by Judaics and their sycophants. One’s chances of survival as a nation are inversely proportional to the hatred that nation generates among its neighbors.

    It’s my best understanding that a Judaic employed in FDR’s Dept. of State invented the term “anti-Semite” as a meme to convince Americans to enter a war of which they wanted no part. A war, BTW, which directed resulted in the death of over 10x as many as in the alleged “holocaust,” in Russia, Europe, and China.

    Furthermore, since Roe, Americans have murdered 10x as many unborn Americans as are alleged to have died in the “holocaust.” And yet, no taxpayer financed museums for any of the several instances of death and suffering that far outweigh the alleged case of the holocaust.

      1. Thanks for confirming Israel firsters like yourself have no literary reply to anything I typed, thus only confirming its accuracy.

        Israel-firsters would fry George Washington alive in oil for his heresy of denying the USA’s “permanent” relationship with Israel. Are you really smarter than GW Re. foreign policy? Please explain.

        Notice anyone other than Israel firsters, such persons provide you only a binary choice: give eternal unspecified blood and money to support Israel, or you are just another Hitler.

        Again: “What you cannot criticize is your God.”

        1. You haven’t offered specific criticisms. You don’t know anything but the contents of your disordered mind.

    1. In 1948 did the US come to the aid of the Jews fighting multiple countries that had armor and air? No. When Britain left the area turning over the fortresses and weapons to the Arabs did they provide weapons to the Jews? No. In fact the British thought the Jews would be destroyed. During WW2 was the Arab leader Grand Mufti al-Husseini impartial? No He went along with with Hitler’s idea of genocide. After all al-Husseini had been responsible for the riots and killing of Jews preceding the war so there was no peace to be made with him in 1948.

      War broke out on a specified date and ended on a specified date with Israel being granted the land its people controlled and Arab nations granted the land they controlled. A tiny population with no organized army, no armor, no air force survived the attacks of multiple nations that had all these assets along with large populations and infrastructure.

      What I hear from Trohar is pure unsubstantiated ignorance. Such ignorance is her right just as she has the right to squeal and play in the dung of a pig pen. Our tolerance towards the piggishness of Trohar far outweighs her tolerance of a nation that virtually came into being all alone where the odds of survival were very low. Israel will survive Trohar as Jews have survived anti-Semitism for millennia.

      1. It should be noted that American aid to Israel prior to 1973 was bupkis. Aid provision was coincident with efforts to broker settlements between Israel and other parties. It was contextually of greatest significance ca. 1984, but has declined relentlessly since on this measure.

    2. Princess said:

      “It’s my best understanding that a Judaic employed in FDR’s Dept. of State invented the term “anti-Semite” as a meme to convince Americans to enter a war of which they wanted no part.”

      From Britannica:

      “The term anti-Semitism was coined in 1879 by the German agitator Wilhelm Marr to designate the anti-Jewish campaigns under way in central Europe at that time.”

      I think there were some serious and legit reasons why “isolationists” did not to want to enter WW 2 at the time. I do not think that “antisemitism” was a big concern for most Americans in general, not one way or another, at the time. The core issues did not really relate to the problems of Jews in Axis controlled areas. That we think this now is perhaps because that aspect horrifies people in retrospect. but at the time the sufferings of jews were not the primary concerns either for pro war advocates nor isolationists.

      1. Princess Trohar is evidently unaware of this thing once called the Pacific Theater.

  6. – Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.

    – The Supreme Court shall strike down all laws abridging the freedom of speech.

    1st Amendment

    Congress 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 for a redress of grievances.

    “…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”

    “[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

    – Alexander Hamilton

  7. This is a bad law. Bad laws often pass with good intentions. While anti-semitism is reprehensible, our Free Speech protections extend to hate speech, as well.

    Such laws might initially pass for what most of us consider hate speech, but once our First Amendment rights are curtailed, the government could decide what hate speech may be defined as, and we might not like that definition.

    We are a free country. People can voice the most odious opinions that they choose.

    This law is unconstitutional. Fight anti-semitism with good speech, condemnation, or simply ignore the speaker as one of low character.

    One does wonder if such a law passed, how long it would take for Ilan Omar and AOC to be arrested. While I vehemently disagree with their anti Semitic views, I would oppose criminalizing their ignorance.

    1. Despots and Socialist tyrannies often gain power by appealing to reason. Wouldn’t it be reasonable to, say, outlaw certain hate speech? Gullible people give up their individual rights for a good cause, and then find they’ve created a monster.

      Supporters of this bill might think they are fighting to prevent the rise of a Nazi dictatorship. Never again. And yet, their efforts would, in fact, give rise to just such a tyrant. The government would be able to declare any speech hate speech. For instance, questioning Global Warming. Conservatives would be a likely target, judging by the mainstreaming of attacks upon them. Stating that their religion views marriage as between a man and a woman might be a jailable offense. Not baking a cake. Condemning Islamic terrorism and the global caliphate. Or even sharply criticizing the Catholic pedophilia scandal.

      Unintended consequences…Don’t be fooled by the stated motivation behind any move to erode individual rights. It’s never the answer.

    2. i agree

      also when you get into calling something a myth, and criminalizing that, you wade into really difficult territory.

      Celsus said that the jewish followers of Jesus had engaged in a conspiracy to circulate a myth that He had Risen. Of course the Jewish Sandhedrin said the same thing.

      Should have either the Sandredrin or Celsus been imprisoned?

      Also you could come up with a lot of things in the Old Testament which suggest that Israel had a destiny to lead the world, in so many words. https://www.tms.edu/m/tmsj9c.pdf

      Christianity transformed physical Israel into metaphorical Israel in the form of the Christian Church, and then made the world-leadership role a very explicit charge (Great Commission). Yet, many people consider Judaism and Christianity myths. These things can be turned on their ear and reversed very quickly.

      As usual, Florida coming up with bad laws.

      1. As usual, Florida coming up with bad laws.

        There should be political consequences to the making of unconstitutional laws. Unfortunately the very people tasked with that duty are the very constituents these politicians are pandering to. And they are the same people that put these unconstitutionalists in office.

        Need something like a 3 strikes law that says if a lawmaker voted for laws that were struck down by the courts as unconstitutional 3 times, they are no longer eligible for reelection.

        1. Florida took a reputational hit with the Hanging Chad, and carried on from there.

  8. This is what’s supposed to pass as law-making by the anointed political class? They are a cowardly, lazy lot. They are using bad law to make up for a culture without virtue. That it passed unanimously is a sad reflection on the character of that elected body and the ignorance of the voters that put them there.

  9. To the claim: “… Waste of time. There is no such thing as international law.”

    One who asserts a claim must offer proof.
    What is asserted without proof must be denied without proof.

    The Nuremberg principles were a set of guidelines for determining what constitutes a war crime. The document was created by the International Law Commission of the United Nations to codify the legal principles underlying the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi party members following World War II.

    The principles

    Principle I
    “Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefor and liable to punishment.”

    Principle II
    “The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.”

    Principle III
    “The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law, acted as Head of State or responsible government official, does not relieve him from responsibility under international law.”

    Principle IV
    Main article: Superior orders
    “The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him”.

    This principle could be paraphrased as follows: “It is not an acceptable excuse to say ‘I was just following my superior’s orders'”.

    Previous to the time of the Nuremberg Trials, this excuse was known in common parlance as “Superior Orders”. After the prominent, high-profile event of the Nuremberg Trials, that excuse is now referred to by many as the “Nuremberg Defense”. In recent times, a third term, “lawful orders” has become common parlance for some people. All three terms are in use today, and they all have slightly different nuances of meaning, depending on the context in which they are used.

    Nuremberg Principle IV is legally supported by the jurisprudence found in certain articles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which deal indirectly with conscientious objection. It is also supported by the principles found in paragraph 171 of the Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status which was issued by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Those principles deal with the conditions under which conscientious objectors can apply for refugee status in another country if they face persecution in their own country for refusing to participate in an illegal war.

    Principle V
    “Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law.”

    Principle VI
    “The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

    (a) Crimes against peace:
    (i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
    (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
    (b) War crimes:
    Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the Seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
    (c) Crimes against humanity:
    Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.”

    Principle VII
    “Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.”

    Opening Statement Before The Military International Tribunal

    By Robert H. Jackson
    November 21, 1945


    Unfortunately, the nature of these crimes is such that both prosecution and judgment must be by victor nations over vanquished foes. The worldwide scope of the aggressions carried out by these men has left but few real neutrals. Either the victors must judge the vanquished or we must leave the defeated to judge themselves. After the first World War, we learned the futility of the latter course. The former high station of these defendants, the notoriety of their acts, and the adaptability of their conduct to provoke retaliation make it hard to distinguish between the demand for a just and measured retribution, and the unthinking cry for vengeance which arises from the anguish of war. It is our task, so far as humanly possible, to, draw the line between the two ….. We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants today is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well. We must summon such detachment and intellectual integrity to our task that this Trial will commend itself to posterity as fulfilling humanity’s aspirations to do justice.


    dennis hanna

    1. Dennis – you may notice that a great many countries do not acknowledge or follow the Nuremberg Principles.

      1. principles of law are not laws in themselves

        jackson grappled with many of the legal issues posed by the nuremberg tribunal and tried to make it a legit proceeding

        but under US law it had a big problem. we don’t allow “ex post facto” laws.

        that is to say, things that were not a violation of law at the time, but are made illegal after the fact

        “war of aggression” and certain other charges were ex post facto charges. they could not have been brought in US courts.

        some of the charges could have been however such as killing American pows who escaped. that was a violation of existing law, Geneva conventions. for example.


    2. One who asserts a claim must offer proof.

      It doesn’t matter how much you babble, Dennis, there is still no such thing as international law.

      There are conventions corporate bodies adhere to for one reason and another, but there is no law. There is no law because there are no bodies to define, enforce, and adjudicate such laws.

      Israeli agents hustling Eichmann back to Jerusalem for trial is a violation of Argentine law. Nobody cares about that. Argentina isn’t a serious country and if they want people to respect their laws they can start paying their damned taxes, balance their public accounts, and quit debasing their currency.

  10. “You cannot have it both ways, so to question bans on speech that is antisemitic while not questions a ban on the N word is hypocritical at best.” And you can add another group including each and every identity group. To think, George Carlin had just & Words That cannot Be Said On TV”

    1. 1st Amendment

      Congress 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 for a redress of grievances.

      The 1st Amendment is manifest regarding the unassailable, absolute and unmitigated freedom of speech, nonbinding and immaterial individual opinion notwithstanding.

  11. You get the impression now and again that you’re never going to find a politician who will do more than plumb the shallows of any subject.

    1. The American Founders allowed citizens to insult the King and keep their heads.

  12. (music to the tune of the Armour Hot Dog Song)
    Hate Speech!
    Call it hate speech!
    What kind of kids like formal hate speech?

    Fat kids, skinny kids…
    Kids who climb on rocks…
    New York kids and Philly kids…
    Even kids with chickenpox…
    Like hate speech….
    They like hate speech!
    The dogs, kids, like….
    To Bite?

  13. Well, gee. My thesis was on the illegality of the Israeli kidnapping of Adolf Eichmann from Argentina under International Law. My classmates warned me that our Jewish Professor would not take kindly to that topic as it was critical of Israel’s state actions and cast it in a bad light. Our Prof thought it was “A” work. I do not think he would approve of this legislation. It is a step down a slippery slope which, ultimately, will be unnavigable. I do not engage in “hate speech,” but I will not permit government to tell me what to say. Short of threatening the life of a sitting president, or shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater, I will continue to say that which I think should be said in the manner I see fit to say it. Shalom.

    1. Well, gee. My thesis was on the illegality of the Israeli kidnapping of Adolf Eichmann from Argentina under International Law.

      Waste of time. There is no such thing as international law.

      1. the subject is covered in a better way than one gets from the usual experts today, by an expert from yesterday, Carl Schmitt, “Nomos of the Earth”


        “Every fundamental order is a spatial order. One speaks of the constitution of a country or a piece of earth as of its fundamental order, its Nomos. Now, the true, actual fundamental order touches in its essential core upon particular spatial boundaries and separations, upon particular quantities and a particular partition of the earth. At the beginning of every great epoch there stands a great land-appropriation. In particular, every significant alteration and every resituating of the image of the earth is bound up with world-political alterations and with a new division of the earth, with a new land-appropriation.”

        —Carl Schmitt, Land and Sea: A World-Historical Meditation

        Save 20% on your purchase of Carl Schmitt, Land and Sea when you shop in our online store. Just use the coupon code BOOKS20 during the checkout process.

        “Land and Sea is Carl Schmitt’s ambitious and often beautiful effort to render the geo-political history of humankind as grand fable. Schmitt muses over man’s fate as he transformed from land-bound creature to conqueror of the seas and eventually the skies. The subtext of the work concerns Germany’s precarious position as defender of humanity’s fundamental political essence as it withstands sieges from various trans-territorial forces, especially England, the Soviet Union, the United States and, most chillingly, the Jews. Berman and Zeitlin must be commended for making this astounding work available to English-speaking audiences in such an impeccably translated and annotated form for the first time.”
        —John P. McCormick, Professor of Political Science, University of Chicago, and author of Carl Schmitt’s Critique of Liberalism: Against Politics as Technology

    2. Chuck your thesis sounds interesting. and you know it may be that Israelis fear kidnapping themselves by their enemies for what their enemies accuse them of doing.

      Indeed Israel’s policy towards extradition is not quite so cooperative as one might suspect


      In many ways, ironically, Israel has become a big defender of Westphalian national sovereignty, and for that I applaud them

      most liberals don’t like that very much

      1. You find the thought of his 50-year old term papers interesting?

        1. i never read it, i just said it sounded interesting to me. i find a lot of things interesting. i;’m a curious person

          1. there is a lot of irony in jewish history and the jewish people have a great sense of humor about themselves.

            a law banning antisemitic content is as humorless as the typical person who obsessively denigrates the jews

            It’s to the credit of Israel and Jews in general that they engage in a lot of self reflection. self reflection in a people is a good thing. one thing i like about the left, is they pay attention to groups and group actions and identity. this can be a good thing for many reasons. people are not just individuals, they are members of groups.

            and yet people are indeed “diverse.” there is a wide range of opinion among jews., the old adage is ‘two jews, three opinions” and that should be said with a laugh. but this is not a monolithic community. likewise its critics are often very “diverse”

            in some people’s minds, Israel becomes a bogeyman, full of exaggerated terrifying significance. this kind of attitude undermines any legitimate critique which is made. you can see it above in the over the top comments from Princess.

            the business of habitually blaming jews also always has buried inside it, giving somebody else a pass. life is complicated, and it’s a foolish thing to do, always to oversimplify things.

            We have heard for example how Hitler and the veterans of WW I blamed German Jews for a “stab in the back” which caused a loss in WW I. Well, there was a jewish-lead communist strikes in Germany such as lead by Kurt Eisner that created pressure. And yet., Is this not letting the Generals off the hook for failing to sue for peace at an opportune moment? Ludendorff for example was a big jew hater. But in fact was he perhaps not the very one responsible for failing to secure a reasonable peace settlement before conditions deteriorated? Maybe blaming Jews at times is a big excuse for just failing to do what should have been done one way or another.

            One suspects a lot of Palestinian failures amount to so much blaming the Jews for things that the Palestinians should perhaps do for themselves.
            about the history of peace overtures in WW I:

            While a lot of Gentiles are very sensitive about antisemitism, one way or another, sometimes Jewish people are actually less touchy about it. Over the years i have found that jewish people are often very receptive to critical conversations about israel or jewish things. this is from a one on one basis. i find the current conflict between the “left” darlings like Ihlan Omar and her critics on the right as a typically oversimplifying dynamic with each side demonizing the other. on the left side are all marxists or jihaadists or “self hating jews,” and on the right side they are all “zionists” or “Christian Israel firsters” etc

            almost as vexatious a dynamic as the strident ideologues around the abortion “debate”

            can a person have a chat anymore without being called a name to immediately discredit the content of their opinions?

            Trumpers, Faux News disciples, etc you hear that all the time here from certain people as if to immediately dismiss whatever will come from the other side

  14. “Hate speech”. I hate Hillary. Does that make me anti democratic? I hate Hitler. I hate Stalin.

  15. We entered this quagmire with the seemingly uncontested concept of legislation banning “hate speech”. We are either free to say anything we want as stated in the 1st amendment or we can have our speech curtailed for political reasons. You cannot have it both ways, so to question bans on speech that is antisemitic while not questions a ban on the N word is hypocritical at best. If this is the hill you want to die on why not its initial trigger, the hate speech legislation?

    1. “You cannot have it both ways, so to question bans on speech that is antisemitic while not questions a ban on the N word is hypocritical at best.”

      Alma, you hit the nail on the head.

Comments are closed.