A Threat to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

Free speech is the cornerstone of government of, by, and for the people.

If we can't expose lies we can't be sovereign individuals participating in a Republic.

This thread is inspired by an article by Chris Menahan dated March 9, 2023 entitled "Georgia Passes Hate Crimes Bill - Democrat Questions Why New Protections Only Apply to Jews."

From this article I learned of an organization I had never heard of before: the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA).

The article lists the IHRA's definition for anti-Semitism and states point-blank something I agree with—the definition embodies the exact opposite of freedom of speech.

Also, that no other ethnic or religious group in America is afforded any such privileges.

The definition has many parts:

- 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.

www.informationliberation.com...

Speech is not violent.

There is no excuse for denying free speech.

In some social media I am using, there is a lot of anti Semites and once I had followed some links provided by a Neo Nazi without realizing what was happening. So I've been exposed to some of the Nazi propaganda and will block people pushing that. It wasn't even violent speech I read that day, but it would of course lead into that if you did a dive into that world.

I didn't get freaked and get all over the guy that was chatting with me, I politely said I wasn't into that and we parted ways without any problems. He was pretty slick though, but it comes down to respecting the right of free speech in such a situation. I may not like what people say, but I have to respect their right to be a racist piece of crap and say so on a social media platform.

ETA: At least if people are allowed to freely express themselves, then we know what they are about and can avoid them if necessary. I say let them talk, it will only prove what they really are.

Also, that no other ethnic or religious group in America is afforded any such privileges.

We have the ACLU, Civil Rights Act, NAACP, BYP, The Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, American Civil Liberties Union, Kids in Need of Defense, Advancement Project, and Color Of Change just to name a few groups dedicate to the 'protection' of minorities-none of which are Jewish.

It's all BS IMO. The only group needed is one to protect the rights of all ordinary citizens, no matter their color or ethnic origins.

a reply to: nugget1

Well, the Civil Rights Act is legislation, not a group, and don't you think it was necessary, since segration is inherently discrimination against black people?

originally posted by: DevotedResearcher
a reply to: nugget1

Well, the Civil Rights Act is legislation, not a group, and don't you think it was necessary, since segration is inherently discrimination against black people?

I was responding to the your erroneous statement:

Also, that no other ethnic or religious group in America is afforded any such privileges.

We do have many groups, each dedicated to keep humans separated into distinct subgroups TPTB can pit against each other. It keeps them from having to do anything for the greater good of all humanity and allows each group to play the victim card as an excuse for their shortcomings.

You're bashing one group while defending another; we're all human and focusing on our differences instead of connectedness is why we're regressing as a species.

a reply to: DevotedResearcher

The First Amendment provides that Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise. It protects freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The courts have ruled that Freedom of Speech is not all encompassing. You can't say things that would cause Imminent Lawless Action. And it seems to me that the bill is defining hate speech in case there is some crime committed against Jews. It would be interesting to read the content of the bill to see what's actually in there.

a reply to: nugget1

I am not bashing a group in any way shape or form.

The definitions of "anti-Semitism," listed as principles for the need for legislation do not compare with the real need for a redress of grievances that the Civil Rights Act represented. Jews are not discriminated against in the work place or anywhere else.

The fact is, the actions of the state of Israel, for one example, need to be discussed freely.

People who say words hurt have never been punched in the face.

a reply to: DevotedResearcher
Same with Florida HB269: www.flsenate.gov... which is absolute ANTIFirstAmendment in that one could have their life destroyed on multiple levels for mentioning quote-enquote "jews" and/or "Israel". Just them in any way. Talking, online posting, billboards, flyers, any freedom of expression can be done about anything ever EXCEPT that.

My fav on any of this was the ADL response on the Twit: twitter.com...
So poorly worded. That's a rule for ethnostates such as Israel, not the United States of Weimerica. AInternet says so.

Alderaan < Earth