Vice President JD Vance expressed confidence in Israel-Gaza ceasefire at the opening of the civilian military cooperation center in Israel.
* A Wisconsin bill seeks to legally define antisemitism using the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition.
* Opponents argue the bill could infringe on First Amendment rights to criticize the Israeli government.
* Supporters, including some Jewish students, say the definition would help distinguish between free speech and hate speech.
* The bill’s author states it is meant to identify antisemitism, not to make it illegal or restrict speech.
MADISON – A bill that aims to codify in Wisconsin law a definition of antisemitism faced opposition in a public hearing, with some speakers arguing it could infringe on First Amendment rights to criticize the actions of the Israeli government in Palestine.
The October 22 legislative hearing drew a large turnout of speakers, necessitating an overflow room. At times the atmosphere was tense, and committee chair Rep. Rob Swearingen, R-Rhinelander, reminded those in the audience to remain silent during testimony.
The bill, if passed and signed into law, would require that state and local governments use the definition of antisemitism adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance in 2016:
“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
The definition would be used to decide criminal penalty enhancers when a crime targets a victim or group of victims because of their “actual or perceived race, religion, color or national origin,” according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Legislative Reference Bureau.
A bipartisan group of legislators introduced the bill, but several Democrats withdrew their support in late September. Cosponsors include Democratic state Rep. Lisa Subeck from Madison, one of the state’s two Jewish-American legislators.
The federal government has also adopted the definition.
Rep. Ron Tusler, R-Harrison, one of the bill authors, said it is meant to outline what antisemitism is, not to add new laws. It would add Wisconsin to the list of 37 other states that have adopted the definition.
“This is not making it illegal to be antisemitic; you can still be antisemitic after this bill passes. This is not restricting that speech,” he said during the hearing.
“It’s identifying that speech, just like we identify what butter is,” Tusler said, a reference to the state’s margarine laws.
Hannah Rosenthal, the former CEO of the Milwaukee Jewish Federation and the child of a Holocaust survivor, said she has seen the impacts of antisemitism first-hand, but believes the definition should not be enshrined in law because it is too vague.
“The definition depends on context, but it’s unclear who will determine that context,” she said.
Rosenthal said she knows the chief author of the definition, Ken Stern, who opposes efforts to codify the working definition because of its vagueness and lack of protection for freedom of speech and academic freedom. She added there are no definitions for Islamophobia or racism in state statutes.
“If your goal with this legislation is to affect and combat antisemitism, it will not,” she said. “If today you want to combat that antisemitism, I propose you pass a bipartisan resolution that condemns antisemitism.”
The Milwaukee Jewish Federation has registered in support of the bill.
Lawmakers and students who testified at the hearing also focused on pro-Palestine encampments at the University of Wisconsin campuses in spring 2024.
Jewish students from UW-Madison who spoke at the hearing said they have felt unsafe on campus, with one recounting an incident last year when he was called a slur on Library Mall. They also cited antisemitic chalk messages found on campus in recent years.
“Without this definition in place, it was just free speech, and I’m just expected to just go with it,” UW-Madison senior Erika Klein testified. “Adopting the (IHRA) definition of antisemitism would help draw that line between free speech and hate speech.”
State Rep. Ryan Clancy from Milwaukee, who attended the encampments and has said the U.S., in its support of Israel, is responsible for genocide, testified at the hearing that the bill targets people “speaking up for Palestine.”
“Clearly here, the goal is to target people who are outspoken against genocide and who are expressing a legitimate criticism of government, whether that’s ours or Israel’s or both. Our country is based on criticism of government,” Clancy said, referring to the deaths of civilians in Gaza.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin registered in opposition to the bill, saying it could limit the ability of Wisconsinites to criticize the Israeli government. The organization also argued that antisemitism is already prohibited in Wisconsin.
“Antisemitic discrimination is abhorrent; it’s destructive to both individuals and communities,” the ACLU said in a letter submitted to the committee.
“The IHRA definition and its non-exhaustive list of examples, however, are overbroad by equating protected speech with unprotected discrimination. Criticism of the Israeli government and its policies is political speech, squarely protected by the First Amendment,” the ACLU said.
Laura Schulte can be reached at [email protected] and on X @SchulteLaura. Hope Karnopp can be reached at [email protected].
Read more on The Post-Crescent
