‘Necessary' or 'misguided'? 6 reactions to House antisemitism bill
Ben Shapiro
Daily Wire Host Ben Shapiro expressed concerns about the Antisemitism Awareness Act during his podcast last Thursday. The Orthodox Jewish conservative commentator asserted that some of the language in IHRA's definition of antisemitism referenced in the bill, specifically the part concerning the death of Jesus, is “vague and badly worded.”
“I think it’s overbroad, and I think the definition should not be applied in American law in this way,” Shapiro said, explaining that the bill’s purpose was to create a “working definition of antisemitism” that would cause universities to lose funding under Title VI.
Get Our Latest News for FREE
“The problem is the bill fails in two particular ways,” the Daily Wire host continued. “It fails, number one, because it obviously is unconstitutionally vague, right? It operates as yet another element of what should originally have been an unconstitutional hate speech law.
Shapiro asserted that all of Title VI is an “unconstitutional hate speech law,” but the recent bill adds to that by including the IHRA’s working definition of antisemitism. The conservative commentator contended that some of the cases included in the definition are “vaguely worded” and “almost certainly encroach on free speech concerns.”
The IHRA definition of antisemitism includes comparing contemporary Israeli policies to Nazis, which Shapiro argued might have worked in the past, but it doesn’t now because it’s common for people to compare a lot of things to Nazis.
“So comparing Israel to the Nazis is basically rote at this point,” Shapiro said. ”It's what everyone does with everyone at all times. Trump is Hitler; Biden is Hitler; everyone is Hitler; everyone I don’t like is a Nazi.”
Samantha Kamman is a reporter for The Christian Post. She can be reached at: samantha.kamman@christianpost.com. Follow her on Twitter: @Samantha_Kamman
