Reason published an op-ed this week pointing out that Texas’ General Order GA-44, enacted by Gov. Greg Abbott in response to the pro-Palestine protests that erupted at college and university campuses earlier this year, is more than likely unconstitutional.

Penned by Eugene Volokh, the article highlights what a federal court “correctly, I think,” according to Volokh, had to say with regard to the case of Students for Justice in Palestine v. Abbott. In short, the bill, according to Judge Robert Pitman (W.D. Tex.), contains discriminatory language that probably does not pass the muster of the First Amendment.

“[A]s a threshold issue, the Court finds the incorporation of this specific definition of antisemitism is viewpoint discrimination,” Pitman wrote. “In general, including the word ‘antisemitism’ in speech policies, perhaps in the context of protecting students from discrimination and harassment, is not inherently a First Amendment violation.”

(Related: In case you missed the start of this saga, be sure to check out our earlier report to learn more about what Gov. Abbott did and why.)

Abbott forcing Texas to avoid criticizing Israel with expanded prohibitions on “antisemitic” speech

In its preamble, General Order GA-44 details the events of the Israel-Palestine conflict and related protests that came out of the events of October 7 of last year. It specifically takes issue with some of the pro-Palestine chants, including the infamous “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” chant, which the Order states “has long been used by Hamas supporters to call for the violent dismantling of the State of Israel and the destruction of the Jewish people who live there.”

As such, General Order GA-44 orders all institutions of higher learning in the Lone Star State to do the following three things:

1) Review and update their free speech policies “to address the sharp rise in antisemitic speech and acts on university campuses and establish appropriate punishments, including expulsion from the institution”

2) Ensure that all of these updated policies are enforced at all times on campus, specifically against “groups such as the Palestine Solidary Committee and Students for Justice in Palestine”

3) Include in their updated policies a new definition for “antisemitism,” as also adopted by the State of Texas in Section 448.001 of the Texas Government Code, that expands its scope

“‘Antisemitism’ means a certain perception of Jews that may be expressed as hatred toward Jews,” explains Section 448:001 of the Texas Government Code. “The term includes rhetorical and physical acts of antisemitism directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals or their property or toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

“Examples of antisemitism are included with the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s ‘Working Definition of Antisemitism’ adopted on May 26, 2016.”

Two of those examples include, 1) denying Jewish people of “their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Isr[ae]l is a racist endeavor,” and, 2) “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.”

Judge Pitman sees right through what Abbott and his fellow pro-Zionist tyrants are trying to do by pigeonholing the definition of “antisemitism” to include pretty much anything critical against Israel and its often-violent policies.

“The Defendants wish to view the speech policies in this vacuum, claiming the revised policies do not in fact prohibit any specific expression,” Pitman said. “But here, the speech policies do not leave ‘antisemitism’ open to constitutional definitions and interpretations, because GA-44 mandated a specific definition.”

“In conclusion, the Court finds that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim, even under Tinker (Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. School Dist. (1969)) that the GA-44-compliant university policies impose impermissible viewpoint discrimination that chills speech in violation of the First Amendment.”

The latest news about the right-wing assault on pro-Palestinian speech can be found at Censorship.news.

Sources for this article include:

Reason.com

X.com

NaturalNews.com