The Daily Gamecock

Letter: Anti-semitism bill dangerous for free speech

<p></p>

First Amendment rights are discussed on an almost daily basis in the current sociopolitical climate. With a presidential Twitter account that frequently creates controversy and conversation over First Amendment rights and the freedom of the press, it seems often that the largest threats to free speech are occurring at the national level. However, this idea is far from the truth.

On Feb. 22, Rep. Alan Clemmons’ bill 3643 went before the South Carolina House Judiciary Special Laws Subcommittee. Framed as a bill that would curb anti-Semitism on college campuses statewide, in reality this is a piece of legislation that would put a muzzle on the free speech of South Carolinian citizens and universities, establishing a dangerous precedent that could lead to future restraints on First Amendment rights.

In the bill’s text, Clemmons — a Christian Zionist who has a history of leaning to the far right — expands the traditional definition of anti-Semitism to include not only speech that is hostile or prejudiced toward those of Jewish ethnicity, but also speech that falls into the one of three categories of “demonizing Israel,” “holding Israel to a double standard” and “delegitimizing Israel.”

Falling under these categories are a few acts that actually qualify as anti-Semitic, but most of what the bill would outlaw on college campuses is legitimate, legal speech, such as only focusing on "peace or human rights investigations” in Israel, and comparing Israeli governmental policy with that of the Nazi regime.

The negative effects of this bill if passed are extensive. A wide range of valid speech could be made unlawful, including almost any criticism whatsoever of the Israeli state. Presented under the umbrella of curbing hate speech, this bill deals very little with actual anti-Semitism, but instead is intended to silence any support of the Palestinian state and end valuable discussion regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the university classroom.

Any student organizations that support Palestinian rights — e.g. the USC chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine — would be forced to come to an end if this bill should become law, and the course offerings of several professors in the state that teach on Israel or Palestine would have to be amended. Furthermore, the university element of public discourse and healthy debate would no longer be allowed to thrive in regard to this issue.

One of the most dangerous threats that this bill poses is the restraint that it would place on Palestinians at South Carolinian colleges who have firsthand knowledge of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Many Palestinians view the Israeli treatment of their people as racist and imperfect. Much of this population would be kept from speaking their true opinions about the Israeli government, and this would not only harm the voice of the Palestinian people but would also put an end to valuable input about this conflict from those with firsthand experiences.

HB 3643 threatens the very essence of the freedom associated with American democracy, the state of South Carolina and the college environment and must be stopped. A law that does not allow criticism of a government or disagreement with a nation’s policies is not one that is in keeping with the First Amendment. This bill would set a dangerous precedent for future years — if universities can be kept from honest debate on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, what is to stop censorship in the future of open discussion on any other topic?


Comments