The bill passed 320-91. In addition to the bill, GOP Representatives supported the deployment of the National Guard to stop the protests.
Protesting is nothing but voicing an opinion.
Why exactly does the United States need to “stop protests” when the country claims its roots are in protesting and free expression?
It seems like American citizens don’t live in a free country, but an authoritarian one.
Also why would the protestors listen to anyone telling them to stop? Isn’t the point of a protest to send a message to authority?
I certainly hope they ignore that authority and continue.
When protesters start breaking into buildings, it’s a bit more than just “voicing an opinion”. I swear the comments on these posts make me think everyone on Lemmy is 17 years old. As Shakespeare said,“Sound and Fury, signifying nothing.”
Boop beep I got delete.
Someone doesn’t pay attention to current event. Read a paper.
Boop beep I got delete.
You’re throwing hypotheticals out there. I have no idea. It’s a weird knee jerk response. I remember my grandmother (RIP), upon hearing about a bad car crash in her area immediately saying,“It was probably drugs.” I suggested it may have been a medical issue, or you know, just an accident.
You have to remember, there were far more arrests during the Vietnam protests, and we can’t forget that the National Guard actually opened fire on protesters.
And finally, hell, getting arrested at protests is kind of a rite of passage, isn’t it? It was when I was going, but that is a long, long time ago.
Boop beep I got delete.
No worries man. Hey, if nothing was getting vandalized, fellow students aren’t being threatened, etc., then it’s an obvious 1st amendment issue. I have zero love for the police. I’ll see if I can top your day. I had to drive completely through LA, twice. I fucking hate driving through LA. Sorry back at you if I pissed you off. I’m high as hell when I’m on here and most of the time I don’t remember what I even wrote.
It requires the Department of Education to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of antisemitism when enforcing federal anti-discrimination laws. The working definition says antisemitism is in-part “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.” The definition includes denying Jewish people their right to self-determination by claiming that the State of Israel is a racist state and drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
I agree with the overall definition, but one of the examples is used to shut down criticism of Israel’s actions that fit the definition of genocide.
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
The holocaust is the genocide that most western countries are familiar with, and most criticism that mentions the current actions fitting the definition of genocide are accused of falling under this umbrella. Yes, terrible people have pretty much poisoned that well by using “Jews are the real Nazis” which is unquestionably antisemitic and what the example is referencing.
Unfortunately it also means that any criticism that includes the actions of the current Israeli government meeting the definition of genocide is assumed to be a comparison to Nazis without them ever being named or intended to be used as the comparison.
**Adopt the following non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism: **
“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.”
So at least 103 Democrats voted for this “GOP” bill?
National Guard from Charlottesville. You know the “good people on both sides”
