Boulder Jewish News Arts, Culture, Events, Lifestyles, Holidays, Synagogues, Education
Senator Rand Paul: Making the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism part of Federal Antidiscrimination Law Violates the 1st Amendment: Is He Right?
By Dr. Jack F. Sigman, Ph.D. – Research Fellow at the University of Arizona
Dr. Rand Paul, a Republican Senator from Kentucky, is arguing that the bill coming before the US Senate, The Antisemitism Awareness Act, is a dangerous violation of the US Constitution’s first amendment guaranteeing free speech. On June 17th, on the “pages” of ezine Reason, Paul states that “This bill poses a grave threat to free speech, as it would grant unelected federal bureaucrats the authority to police speech, theology, and political thought, particularly on college campuses.” Further, he states that “Taken literally, the bill could label the New Testament itself as hate speech.” Is Senator Paul right?
Senator Paul’s argument rests on several bits of supposed evidentiary information: That the bill imposes “sweeping restrictions on constitutionally protected speech,” that “The IHRA definition of antisemitism is overly broad,” that “comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis… is (protected) political argument,” that it “opens the door to federal interference in religious expression,” and that “Even Kenneth Stern, the lead author of the IHRA definition, publicly opposes the Antisemitism Awareness Act.”
Speech is already regulated by law despite the apparent contradiction posed by the 1st Amendment. Senator Paul even gives an example of such restrictions, “the Supreme Court made it clear that inflammatory speech may be restricted only if it incites imminent lawless action and is likely to produce such action.” From October 2018 (Tree of Life murders) through June 2025 (Boulder fire-bombing), there have been multiple episodes of lawless action resulting in murder and attempted murder in the United States driven by antisemitic rhetoric. How much more proof is required to prove that antisemitic speech is “likely to produce” such lawless action?
Is the IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) definition of antisemitism overly broad? Or does it just point out certain reasonable and no-brainer examples of speech that are unquestionably antisemitic in nature and intent, rather than honest criticism of Israeli policy or action? Defining antisemitism without examples is a difficult process. As far as I am concerned, antisemitism is hatred of Jews as a people. I believe the IHRA definition of antisemitism follows that logic and, as a bonus, gives concrete examples, just as a dictionary gives examples after defining a word. The IHRA definition of antisemitism is so persuasive that thousands of countries, states, universities and other institutions have adopted the IHRA definition of antisemitism as a guiding principle.
Comparing anyone to the Nazis is not a political argument. Even when slightly accurate, the accusation is always a slur. The Nazi regime in Germany did not merely create a totalitarian society, it was likely the worst totalitarian state in modern memory. Its goal of racist world domination combined with its attempt to rid the world of Jews through wholesale extermination makes Nazi Germany the recognized benchmark of an evil regime.
The objection to the IHRA definition, that it will lead to censorship or criminalization of Christian scripture is what is known as a red herring – a rhetorical strategy that leads readers or audiences toward a false conclusion. The issue of freedom of religion has a far longer history than freedom of speech. Even Genghis Khan recognized the principle. Of course, there are certain religious practices which are banned. Human sacrifice is no longer allowed. The odds are very high that if anyone tried to criminalize Christianity over the antisemitism found in Christian scripture, the case against anyone arrested would be laughed out of court.
The last objection is that one of the authors of the IHRA definition of antisemitism objects to the Senate bill. This is the weakest argument of all. It is the same tired argument in the line that “because some synagogue attendees do not believe the Jews are a people, that means Jews are not a people.”
The law under the consideration of the Senate, The Antisemitism Awareness Act, provides for the consideration of a definition of antisemitism set forth by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance for the enforcement of Federal antidiscrimination laws concerning education programs or activities, and for other purposes. In other words, you cannot fire someone, or refuse to hire someone, or act in any discriminatory way as indicated in Federal antidiscrimination laws, because that Jewish person is a Zionist. Apparently, Senator Rand Paul objects to this.
