The Ohio Statehouse. (Photo by Jake Zuckerman, Ohio Capital Journal.)
An Ohio Senate Republican has reintroduced a bill to expand criminal charges of “ethnic intimidation” and define antisemitism in state law, aligning the definition with a previous executive order by Gov. Mike DeWine.
State Sen. Terry Johnson, R-McDermott, brought Ohio Senate Bill 87 to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday. He said one of the drivers for the bill was the Hamas attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, after which, he said, “a concerning wave of extremist demonstrations” on Ohio college campuses included “disturbing displays of aggression and intolerance.”
With antisemitism “seemingly on the rise” particularly at “pro-Gaza” protests on college campuses, Johnson said he wants Ohio law to include an expansion of the charge of ethnic intimidation, when combined with other charges.
“Ethnic intimidation is already against the law here in Ohio and can be added as an additional charge for violations such as aggravated menacing, menacing, criminal damaging, or endangering and criminal mischief,” Johnson told the committee. “This legislation would expand that charge to also include aggravated rioting and rioting committed by reason of race, color, religion, or national origin of another person or group.”
A charge of riot can be leveled when five or more people “participate in a course of disorderly conduct” for the purpose of committing a misdemeanor offense. It can also be charged to a group of five or more people accused of intimidating a public official or employee “into taking or refraining from official action, or with the purpose to hinder, impede or obstruct a function of government,” according to the bill.
Rioting can also be charged when a group is accused of trying to “hinder, impede or obstruct the orderly process of administration or instruction at an educational institution.”
If someone is charged with a riot offense, the charge of ethnic intimidation would be a fifth-degree felony. A charge of aggravated riot would bring an ethnic intimidation charge considered second, third, or fourth-degree felony “depending on the circumstances of the offense,” according to an analysis by the Legislative Service Commission.
A bill on which S.B. 87 is based was brought by Johnson in the last General Assembly, and it received both praise and criticism in committee hearings. Those who stood against the bill called it “un-American” and said it conflated “legitimate criticism of Israeli government policies with hatred.”
Critics like the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ Ohio chapter Executive Director Faten Odeh said the previous bill would dampen dissent and could have placed the government “in the role of silencing political opposition.” Opponents also questioned how words used at protests will be interpreted, and who will decide what is considered illegal.
“Who will interpret my words,” asked Patricia Marida in testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee in December. “How far can I go in criticizing the state of Israel? How might I be pointed out, sanctioned, or even targeted by those who disagree with me?”
Along with expanding the criminal offense of ethnic intimidation, the bill codifies a definition of antisemitism “for the purpose of investigations and proceedings by state agencies.”
The definition is taken from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance — the same definition used in a 2022 executive order by DeWine. It encourages state agencies to use it for agency investigations, including those at higher education institutions.
“An executive order is a handy thing, executive orders are easier to change than things that are actually placed in law,” Johnson said when asked on Wednesday why the bill is needed if DeWine’s executive order already exists. “I think this is a weighty enough situation that it needs to be in law.”
Under the definition, 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.”
Supporters of the bill in its previous form included Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost and the group Ohio Jewish Communities, whose president and CEO, Howie Biegelman, said the alliance’s definition would help authorities determine whether incidents rise to the level of “actual antisemitism.”
Biegelman said he was confident the bill would still allow First Amendment rights to continue, only jumping in “when that hatred morphs into a crime or other action covered by a school or work policy.”
Groups such as the Jewish Voice for Peace are opposed to the Holocuast remembrance alliance definition of antisemitism, saying it “conflates criticism of the state of Israel with anti-semitism” and warning about the legislation “possibly tying it to enforcement mechanisms like firing critics of Israel for organizations, and schools getting government funding.”
In introducing the new bill, Johnson said it is “explicitly stated that this legislation shall not be construed to diminish or infringe on any right protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution or Ohio Constitution.”
“The freedom of speech and public demonstrations are ingrained in our American way of life,” Johnson told the committee. “It is crucial for such protests to adhere to the principles of respect, empathy and constructive dialogue between all perspectives.”
While the previous bill passed the Ohio Senate, it didn’t make the cut as the General Assembly term drew to a close at the end of 2024. Johnson also said the bill hit some “unexpected roadblocks from House leadership” that kept it from moving forward, though he didn’t specify what those roadblocks were.
YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.