COLUMBUS, Ohio — A bill working its way through the Ohio Legislature is leading to a heated debate about freedom of speech.
According to its summary, Senate Bill 297 hopes to define antisemitism at a state level — making it easier to investigate claims of the behavior.
Antisemitism in central Ohio
It's behavior that reared its head in Columbus just last month, as neo-Nazis marched through the Short North.
Body camera footage released by the Columbus police department shows an exchange between the group and an officer.
"We're not doing anything illegal. We're actually heading out," the masked person said.
"I definitely feel you. [It's] your first amendment right to say whatever this nonsense is, but come on man" the officer said.
The numbers
According to the Anti-Defamation League, that type of incident isn't specific to Columbus.
In 2022, the ADL tracked 61 "antisemitic incidents" in the state of Ohio.
In 2023, the group tracked 237 incidents.
So far this year, there have been 94.
Senate Bill 297
Bill sponsor Sen. Terry Johnson says the mission behind SB 297 is clear — by defining antisemitism at a state level, he hopes to curb antisemitic incidents in Ohio.
"This new wave of hatred is only getting worse and in the United States of America, especially, it needs to be stopped."
It's a mission many can get behind, but the language in the bill is leading to a difference of opinions.
Under the proposed law, the state would adopt the definition of antisemitism from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA):
"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 bill goes on to say that the state would also use examples of antisemitism provided by IHRA, in its definition. They include:
Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g., gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.”
The bill also includes language that says the adopted definition "may not be construed to diminish or infringe on any right protected by the first amendment to the U.S. or Ohio Constitution. It also cannot be construed to conflict with any federal, state, or local antidiscrimination law."
But critics of the bill, like Khalid Turaani the CAIR-Ohio executive director Columbus, Cincinnati and Dayton, worry the definition is too vague and the examples infringe on someone's ability to be critical of Israel.
"I mean, in America, you can burn the American flag, but you cannot criticize a foreign country. I think this is a sad day in America," he said, "This is not a debate about antisemitism. This is a debate about free speech."
Turaani added that the bill could open the door to more restrictions on speech in the country.
"Subverting the first amendment of the constitution, I think is, is very dangerous and a very slippery slope for us to go on," he said.
10TV also spoke with Kelly Fishman, the regional director of the Anti-Defamation League's Cleveland office. She says the ADL supports the bill.
"We can criticize governments and policies. We should not attack folks for their identities," she said.
But she added that the viewpoints at the root of some of these concerns are often complex and historic.
"Jewish folks are really afraid that if, if people are saying, 'well, we don't want Israel to exist' for them, it feels like 'you don't want me, you don't want Jews to exist,'" she said, "And then Palestinian folks are saying, 'well, hey, wait, we haven't had a country and we want a place to exist and we want a place to feel safe.' And it's that tension that I think continues to fuel the fear and trauma response."
10TV took this debate to two lawyers — Capital University Law Professor Dan Kobil and First Amendment Attorney Marc Randazza.
"As it is written, where the legislature should be using a scalpel, it's using a meat cleaver. It's much too imprecise to limit speech," said Kobil.
"The constitution protects your right to be offensive, to be racist, to be sexist, to be antisemitic. And not because we value those things, but because we value the First Amendment as a neutral principle," said Kobil.
Both claim the language in the law will likely lead to trouble with enforcement if passed as is.
"There are gonna be three arguments that opponents would use to challenge this law. One is that it violates the First Amendment free speech. Two, it's so vague that a person of reasonable intelligence wouldn't know what is or is not prohibited. And three that it's overbroad, meaning that it prohibits lots of words that are clearly protected by the constitution," said Kobil.
This bill has passed the Senate, and its counterpart is now working through the House. If it doesn't pass by the end of the week it will need to be reintroduced during the next General Assembly.