As NC lawmakers consider antisemitism bill, critics worry about free speech

North Carolina lawmakers are proposing to add a broad new definition of antisemitism to state statutes. Some say it’s needed because state law doesn’t clearly define the term, but others say the proposed definition is too broad and could ban political criticism of Israel.

The Shalom Act, filed in the state House and Senate this week, is similar to the Antisemitism Awareness Act passed by the U.S. House on Wednesday, although the federal bill is aimed at educational settings while the state bill is more general.

North Carolina House Bill 942 would adopt the working definition of antisemitism created by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. According to that group's handbook, it is antisemitic to question the legitimacy of the country of Israel or to accuse Jewish people of mass atrocities or genocide. The bill could get a hearing later this month.

House Speaker Tim Moore, who is running for a western North Carolina congressional seat, filed the bill this week. He said pro-Palestinian protests at UNC-Chapel Hill and around the country illustrate the need for stronger protections against antisemitism and hate speech.

“You would think that common sense — we know what's a peaceable protest, right? And then when does it become hate speech? When does it cross that line?” Moore said Wednesday. “It has clearly crossed that line. I mean, you have folks literally right now celebrating the murder of innocent people.”

Moore, R-Cleveland, was referring to a flyer for a pro-Palestinian protest in October. WRAL News has not documented similar flyers or signs at recent protests at UNC.

Asked about anti-Palestinian speech, Moore said no hate speech whatsoever should be tolerated.

“But we see right now who the targets are,” Moore said. “The targets of this are clearly Jewish students who are being singled out, who are being intimidated, who are being harassed, who are being physically assaulted. And that's not right, and it needs to be dealt with.”

Critics on the left and the right say it goes too far in limiting political dissent. Free speech advocates including the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and the American Civil Liberties Union have come out in opposition to the measure at the federal level.

“It conflates antisemitism with criticism of Israel, and that's incredibly problematic,” said Elizabeth Barber, a lawyer for ACLU of North Carolina.

Barber said the IHRA definition was not designed to be legally binding. It was intended to offer governments and non-governmental organizations guidelines for recognizing antisemitism.

The Shalom Act “is calculated to silence people who are critical of Netanyahu’s government, and I can't imagine a more core principle in the United States than that of people here being able to criticize a government,” said Barber, referring to Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister.

Supporters of the bill point out that it includes a provision that excludes speech protected by the First Amendment, which would include political speech. But Barber says it would still have a chilling effect because critics would fear being accused of antisemitism.

The legislation has divided the Jewish community.

Supporters such as the Jewish Federation of Greater Raleigh say it’s badly needed because current state law lacks any clear definition of antisemitism.

But others in the community, including Carolina Jews for Justice, oppose the bill because they say it “not only stifles essential dialogue, but also diminishes the severity of genuine antisemitic incidents,” Abby Lublin, the group’s executive director, said in a statement.

A companion version of the bill has also been filed in the state Senate. Senate Leader Phil Berger, R-Rockingham, said this week he’s willing to give it a hearing.

“We've all known that it's always been there, but the big difference now, at least it seems to me, is people are willing to be open about their antisemitism,” Berger said. “To the extent that we can enact policies that limit the ability of those kinds of voices to actually gain a toehold within society, I think we need to look at that.”