(There’s) no contradiction whatsoever. And the reason why is because this law, on its face, but also … in the text, does not in any way contradict or limit freedom of expression. This does not outlaw expressions of anti-semitism, whether the anti-semitism touches on Israel, or whether the anti semitism touches on Jews – Jews are evil, Jews control the world, whatever it is,” Carr said. “What the definition does is simply define it as anti-semitism and now, what you do with that, well, maybe it’s nothing more than condemnation. And, incidentally, condemnation is exactly what the First Amendment contemplates. The entire basis of the First Amendment is that we meet bad speech not with censorship and punishment, but with good speech.”
The IHRA definition, Carr says, is a tool of education – not of censorship.
“Now let me figure it fairly … crimes are not protected speech. Discrimination (is) not protected speech. So what the IHRA definition allows us to do in that case is determine whether anti-Jewish hatred, anti-Jewish animus, underlies conduct that is already defined as illegal, like a crime, like discrimination. Then … it is relevant into an investigation. But that’s only when there’s conduct that’s prohibited. If all we’re talking about is expressions of speech, no limit whatsoever.
I do not support the entire premise of "hate crimes" from the outset, but if certain groups are going to get this attention then I think the group of people in this country who actually ARE "under fire" should receive it rather than a certain minority who makes up some 15% of the population and is responsible for the vast majority of violent crime.
Y'all who want to vociferously side with the islamists, jihadists, marxist agitators and campus radicals, Tlaib, and Omar because you bought into an insane conspiracy theory, have at it. Not for me.
