South Carolina Democrat stalls anti-Semitism bill –

By Paul Miller/

South Carolina House Bill 3643, which would have the southern state adopt the U.S. State Departments definition of anti-Semitism, was on the cusp of passage Thursday but was stalled by a Democratic lawmaker on the final day of the state legislatures session. The bills adoption is now delayed until at least Jan. 9, 2018, the legislatures next session.

Sources working closely with a bipartisan group of South Carolina legislator told the Haym Salomon Centerthat State Sen.Brad Hutto(D-Orangeburg), the lone obstacle to getting the measure passed, was targeted and influenced by anti-Israel professors and Students for Justice in Palestine. A letter sent to Hutto,shared on Twitter, supports the sources claims. Hutto offered up a last-minute objection to the bill, a procedural maneuver that prevented the measure from being brought to a vote Thursday.

Introduced in February by State Rep. Alan Clemmons(R-Myrtle Beach) and taken up by the South Carolina Senate last month, the measure responds to growing anti-Semitism nationwide, especially on college campuses. The original bill had 115 co-sponsors and passed the states House of Representatives 103-3. South Carolinas five-member Higher Education Senate Subcommittee unanimously approved it April 27.

In a March 9 speech to the South Carolina House, Clemmons said, [U.S.] Sen. [Tim] Scott encouraged me, along with Sen. [Lindsey] Graham, as you can see in the letter on your desk, to move this bill forward in South Carolina, to give our educators a tool for defining anti-Semitism, to take the guesswork out of it, have a uniform definition, which is where we must start to push back on anti-Semitic behavior or any type of bigotry.

Anti-Israel advocates claim the bill suppresses free speech and their right to criticize the Jewish state.

According to the State Departments definition, Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

Caroline Nagel, an associate professor of geography at the University of South Carolina, told The Post and Courierin March,This language would shut down legitimate debate on South Carolina campuses about policies of the state of Israel and would equate criticism of Israel with anti-Jewish racism.

According to The State, a newspaper in Columbia, S.C., The Orangeburg Democrat (Hutto) echoed free-speech concerns voiced by college groups and pro-Palestine advocates that the State Department definition could be interpreted to punish on-campus criticism of Israel. He also said the bill infringes on academic freedom and micromanages colleges.

Kenneth L. Marcus, president of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, said research continues to show an alarming increase in anti-Semitism on our nations college campuses. South Carolina has exactly what it needs to attack this rapidly spreading virus and protect Jewish students from rising hate. The bill enjoys widespread bipartisan support in both chambers. Shamefully, however, one legislator has fallen for a completely false mischaracterization of the bill and is standing in the way of giving Jewish students the protections they need and deserve.

Marcus said the bill does not restrict speech. That is completely false. It is shameful that one legislator cannot see through the spin to protect his constituents. We hope that his colleagues will open his eyes to the truth about the bill and encourage him to do the right thing.

Clemmons told the Haym Salomon Center, All Brad [Hutto] did today was empower the voice of Jew-haters on South Carolina campuses, unfortunately. Our bill that defines anti-Semitism, would have given administrators an important tooluniform definition for anti-Semitism, so they can treat discriminatory acts against Jews just as they would against any other minority. Unfortunately, the Senate has robbed South Carolina of that ability.

Hutto did not return calls for comment.

Here is the original post:

South Carolina Democrat stalls anti-Semitism bill –

Related Post

May 12, 2017   Posted in: Jewish Racism |

Fair Use Disclaimer

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Under the 'fair use' rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights.

Fair use as described at 17 U.S.C. Section 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono-records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  • (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for or nonprofit educational purposes,
  • (2) the nature of the copyrighted work,
  • (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
  • (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."