State Sen. Terry Johnson, R-McDermott, during the Ohio Senate session, February 8, 2023, in the Senate Chamber at the Statehouse in Columbus, Ohio. (Photo by Graham Stokes for Ohio Capital Journal. Republish photo only with original story.)
In Columbus, Ohio last weekend, a small group of neo-Nazis marched through the Short North neighborhood, sparking outraged responses from city and state leaders, as well as President Joe Biden. Ohio state Sen. Terry Johnson, R-McDermott, brought up the incident as he introduced his proposed bill to define antisemitism under Ohio law Wednesday, but his proposal goes back to the wave of demonstrations on university campuses protesting Israel’s war in Gaza.
“Demonstrations related to pro-Gaza protests on college campuses have been marked by disturbing displayed aggression and intolerance,” he argued. “Many of these protests cross the line into antisemitism by targeting Jewish students and expressing hateful rhetoric.”
His legislation incorporates a definition of antisemitism created by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance in state law to determine whether an individual has committed ‘ethnic intimidation.’ That offense operates as an enhancement to charges like menacing or harassment when the violation is tied to an individual’s “race, color, religion, or national origin.” Johnson’s would measure adds riot and aggravated riot to the list of charges that can be elevated if they’re connected to ethnic intimidation.
Johnson insisted “this legislation should not be construed to diminish or infringe on any right protected by the First Amendment.”
“The freedom of speech and public demonstrations are ingrained in our American way of life,” Johnson said. “It is crucial for such a protest to adhere to the principles of respect, empathy and constructive dialog, which we all respect.”
Speaking after the hearing, Johnson reiterated that he’s not concerned about the proposal stifling free speech. He argued it’s “a worthy step” to expand the scope of ethnic intimidation and explicitly define antisemitism. Any agency using the provision to police protected speech would be “reined in by the rule of law,” Johnson added.
Taking a step back
In full, the IHRA definition of antisemitism reads, “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.”
Since its introduction in 2016, nearly 1,300 entities have adopted that definition according to IHRA. Among their number are 45 countries, including the United States, as well as 37 state governments and 96 city and county governments within the United States.
Despite that success, the effort has been met with pushback. In April of 2023, more than 100 civil rights organizations including Human Rights Watch, the ACLU, and Amnesty International signed a letter urging the United Nations not to adopt the IHRA definition. The signatories argued, while antisemitism “is a pernicious ideology that poses real harm to Jewish communities around the world and requires meaningful action to combat it,” the IHRA’s approach is the wrong one.
The organizations argued in practice, the definition “has often been used to wrongly label criticism of Israel as antisemitic, and thus chill and sometimes suppress, non-violent protest, activism and speech.” Their letter noted, as well, that the primary drafter of the IHRA definition has since argued it’s been weaponized to chill speech on college campuses.
Ohio perspectives
Already, Ohio lawmakers have passed legislation aimed at lowering the temperature of campus protests. Following passage of the CAMPUS Act this June, the Ohio Jewish Caucus, made up of Reps. Casey Weinstein, D-Hudson, Dani Issacsohn, D-Cincinnati, and Beryl Brown Piccolantonio, D-Gahanna, praised the measure as a bipartisan effort to promote safety and inclusivity.
“Every student deserves to live, study, and grow in an environment where they feel safe and respected,” they said in a statement. “This year has brought tremendous turmoil on our campuses, and we spent months listening to diverse student voices share their fears, frustrations, and wishes. We are hopeful that the CAMPUS Act will produce a healthier and safer environment when students return to school this fall.”
Unlike Johnson’s measure, which increases penalties, the CAMPUS Act directs universities to implement anti-harassment policies and report hate incidents annually. The proposal also provides funding for safety improvements and interfaith outreach programs.
The Ohio Capital Journal requested comment from the Ohio Jewish Caucus without response.
Ohio Jewish Communities President Howie Beigelman said his organization “is in full support of codifying the Governor’s executive order from 2022, which is what the bill will do,” and he rejected the idea that the measure might stifle free speech.
“You can say anything you want, and you have the right to protest. All this does is define the speech,” he argued. “For there to be any charge, there’s still a requirement of a criminal action here. The antisemitism definition helps provide context to understand if the action was a hate crime or just a standard crime.”
Representative-elect Eric Synenberg, D-Beachwood, was quick to note that since he doesn’t get sworn in until the next session, he doesn’t get a vote. Still, he praised Johnson and DeWine’s willingness to take action publicly on behalf of his community.
“And you know, that includes, obviously this past Saturday in Columbus where we had a group of Nazis marching, and he was very quick to condemn that,” Synenberg said of DeWine.
But while Synenberg embraced the IHRA definition and the intent behind Johnson’s proposal, he still had questions about its application. If ethnic intimidation already extends to religion, he wondered, “do we really need to further define this?” But Synenberg, who’s an attorney, argued if the question comes down to protecting a marginalized group or people saying harmful things about them, he leans toward protecting the marginalized.
“Limiting what somebody can say if it’s meant to harm or target or hurt a marginalized group?” he said, “I’m fine to take that side of the argument every day of the week.”
But Faten Odeh worries in an effort to protect one marginalized group, Johnson’s measure may be missing an opportunity to protect several others. Odeh heads up the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, of Ohio.
“While we support efforts to combat antisemitism, Islamophobia, anti-Palestinian racism and other forms of hate,” she wrote, “this bill as drafted wrongly conflates legitimate criticism of the Israeli government, its actions and its founding ideology with antisemitism.”
“Conflating criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism,” she continued, “undermines fundamental constitutional rights, threatens protected political expression and risks discriminatory enforcement.”
Odeh added that narrowly focusing on criticism toward one community “neglects the broader need to combat all forms of hate and discrimination.” She argued state lawmakers would do better by strengthening existing hate crime laws.
Follow OCJ Reporter Nick Evans on Twitter.
YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.