Treading on difficult ground, Florida lawmakers want to define ‘anti-Semitism’

A bipartisan bill seeking to define what speech is considered anti-Semitic is moving through the Florida Senate after easily passing the House.

Rep. Mike Gottlieb, D-Plantation, sponsor of the House bill, said the goal is to curb hate speech toward Jews and Israel that has been on the rise across the nation for years. Though his bill was introduced in the days following the Oct. 7 Hamas attack on Israel that left more than 1,000 dead, he said he was working on the bill long before the war erupted.

But the bill’s definitions and examples are provoking concern among pro-Palestinian activists and those who want to protect their right to criticize Israel, at a time when many people are struggling with the question of what is anti-Semitic and what is legitimate condemnation of governmental action.

“Moments like this make me wish for a ‘nuance’ button on the House Floor instead of yes/no,” said Rep. Anna Eskamani, D-Orlando, one of three lawmakers to vote against the bill.

Gottlieb said if House Bill 187 becomes law, it would add the definition of anti-Semitism adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) in 2016 into Florida statutes. The IHRA is an international, intergovernmental coalition that addresses initiatives related to education, remembrance and research regarding the Holocaust. Its members represent 35 countries.

“Believe it or not, there was no working definition in Florida Statutes other than in the education space,” Gottlieb said. “The bill provides guardrails as to what is anti-Semitic hate speech.”

The so-called guardrails could be used to prosecute hate crimes, among other purposes.

“We live in a time where people think they can say things and that has no consequence,” Gottlieb said in an interview with the Sentinel. “We needed to address that because words are harmful and they lead to violence. … We can’t stand silent anymore and allow people to talk that kind of hateful speech and rhetoric and not take action.”

Among the expressions deemed anti-Semitic in the bill are long-understood examples like calling for the deaths of Jewish people or denying that the Holocaust happened. But examples more recently understood to be considered hate speech are also included.

Among the contemporary examples included in the bill is making dehumanizing or stereotypical statements about the power Jewish people hold in the world “such as the myth of a worldwide Jewish conspiracy or of Jewish individuals controlling the media, economy, government, or other societal institutions.”

The majority of Republican and Democrat lawmakers in the House and Senate support the bill but a few are concerned that it could erode free speech and could limit the right of pro-Palestinian activists to speak out against Israel’s response to the Hamas attack, which has destroyed much of the Gaza Strip and left more than 20,000 dead in since October.

One section of the bill would make it hateful to draw “comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.” Another calls it hateful to claim “that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor” while another section said it is anti-Semitic to “require of the Jewish state of Israel a standard of behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.”

These sections and others are concerning to activists who say that criticism of the Israeli government and army could be inappropriately labeled as hate speech against observers of the Jewish faith.

In an interview, Eskamani made clear that she supports measures to protect Jewish people in Orlando and across Florida from hate speech, but said she wants to be sure the legislature also protects Palestinians and their supporters.

“As noted by the bill sponsor, the alarming rise in anti-Semitism necessitates a united condemnation from all corners of the political spectrum,” she said.

However, Eskamani took issue with the decision to use the Holocaust alliance’s definition, which she said was never intended to justify punitive action but rather meant as an educational definition to guide data collection.

Gottlieb argued in committee that the concerns about the bill are minor and that it is not intended to shield the state of Israel from criticism.

“It’s my pleasure to bring the bill but it’s sad that I have to,” Gottlieb said in committee last month. “When WWII was started and the extermination of the Jews began, there were, I believe, 16 million Jews throughout the world and six million were killed. Today, there are only 15 million Jews in the world. So anti-Semitism is tremendous problem. While I hear and understand the concerns that the definition has been weaponized, I’m not really that concerned about because I think any definition can be weaponized.”

Still he helped draft an amendment to the Senate’s version of the bill to address free speech concerns.

“I think anytime somebody has a concern, I think it’s important to listen and see if you can alleviate them without watering down your product,” he said. “That’s exactly what we did.”

In the amendment filed by Senate bill sponsor Sen. Lori Berman, D-Boynton Beach, she proposed adding that “the term ‘antisemitism’ does not include criticism of Israel that is similar to criticism of any other country.”

Her amendment would also add that the definition, if adopted, should not infringe on free speech rights granted by the first amendment.

Eskamani said if these changes remain in the bill as it moves through the Senate, it will have to come back to the House for final approval before headed to Gov. Ron DeSantis to be signed into law. In that case, she expects to vote differently.

“We will eventually see the bill again in the House and assuming those amendments stay in the bill, I’ll be voting yes on the bill,” she said.

---------