Could this state legislation deny your free speech?

Newark, NJ - New Jersey Senate bill S1292, which attempts to establish a state definition of anti-semitism and to appropriate $100,000 for a “public awareness campaign to promote bias crime reporting,” was introduced on January 9, 2024. The New Jersey General Assembly Bill A3558 was later introduced on February 4, in a bid to garner support from the full state legislature.

A number of federal representatives from NJ, including a few currently running for governor, have expressed support of the bill - with some having accepted funding and support from AIPAC. Therefore, support for Israel is not uncommon amongst state lawmakers. Further, the bills have already gained the support of a number of state legislators running for re-election, many of whom gathered in Trenton earlier this year to make their support public.

Jon Bramnick, who is a Republican candidate for governor and has been clear in his support of Israel, is one of the bill’s co-sponsors. During an interview with Jewish Link last year, Bramnick stated, “We must give the New Jersey Attorney General’s office more funds to build out their office and expand the work of the Division of Civil Rights. They are underfunded and undermanned.”

What are the bills about?

The core focus of both bills is defining anti-semitism. Legislators argue a clear definition will result in better prevention and responses to antisemitic incidents. According to supportive lawmakers, a legal definition, along with public awareness would reduce incidents of anti-semitism. The appropriated $100,000 comes from the general fund, and the Office of the Attorney General would be responsible for establishing the public awareness campaign.

Both bills state, “Data shows that Jewish people are among the most likely of all minority groups to be victimized by incidents of hate, and such incidents are increasing at an alarming rate.” Setting the stage for what NJ legislators are deeming a crisis, requiring this policy change. The limited statistical information included in the bills reference the impact on students in 2017. The number of incidents noted in the bill is “more than 204” which aligns well with the “208” incidents listed in the 2017 report written by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). The ADL claims its annual audit, “tracks incidents of antisemitic harassment, vandalism and assault in the United States.” Its most recent report, refers to a “massive spike in antisemitic incidents,” and these claims appear to be gathering responses from multiple players across the state.

Image credit: Partial screen shot of ADL homepage on May 1, 2025, taken from the WayBackMachine internet archives. https://web.archive.org/web/20250425114939/https://www.adl.org/

It must be noted the 2024 report also states, “The ADL does not consider criticism of Israel or general anti-Israel activism to be antisemitic and does not count such incidents in the Audit.” However, within the same section of the above quote, the report also states, “More than half of all antisemitic vandalism incidents included references to Israel or Zionism.” It is the contradiction and the conflation of anti-Zionism with anti-semitism that is at the core of the concern regarding these anti-semitism bills.

Defining anti-semitism

Organizers working to build a Community Movement Builders chapter in Newark have considered the bill in the context of their organizational values. “One thing at the core of our organization is that all life has value, and the ability to exist in a world free of oppression is a human right. Passing state legislation that supports humanity would not be an issue, but this bill is not that. This bill sets a precedent of suppressing other marginalized communities under false pretenses. No one who understands the true meaning of anti-semitism could, or would, believe this bill as about anything beyond suppressing the rights of those who stand against apartheid, genocide and land theft.”

The definition of anti-semitism included within the bills, is that of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). The IHRA definition, which was adopted in 2016, is a “non-legally binding working definition,” and does not reference “Israel” or “Zionism” in its two sentence summary. But the IHRA also lists examples, which include, “...criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.” This caveat should indicate, given international law, as well as the findings of the ICC and human rights organizations, that identifying the illegal occupation of Palestinian land, or critiquing the apartheid and genocide of the Palestinian people, would not meet the criteria of anti-semetism.

Graphic credit: Partial screenshot from the IHRA website. https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism

However, the accompanying examples or “manifestations” of anti-semitism provided by IHRA includes, “the targeting of the state of Israel.” Furthering the contradiction for those who are seeking to understand what incidents should be considered antisemitic–as other countries would be critiqued for committing genocide, acts of apartheid and land theft. The conflict created by the IHRA examples creates space for an alternate interpretation of the definition. An interpretation which allows the inclusion of criticism of Israel and/or Zionism to be considered as antisemitic.

Challenging the legislation

The bills are the catalyst for a growing group of activists, voters and candidates who are concerned about the impact the measures will have on free speech. As November 4 elections will seat a new governor and all 80 general assembly persons, the potential exists to seat any number of new officials. Thus, the intention of the Free Speech Assembly Challenge is to fill as many of the senate and assembly seats as possible with people who will not pass either S1292 or A3558 into NJ state law. 

The group behind the challenge is concerned by the implications of redefining anti-semitism to include anti-Israel or anti-Zionist critiques. The pledge the group is using to gather support maintains that the laws, if passed, “would impose the ‘IHRA’ fictitious definition of antisemitism which falsely identifies criticism of Israel as ‘antisemitism,’ as NJ state’s legally accepted definition of antisemitism.” 

There is no denying the bill’s intentions. In conclusion it specifies utilizing the IHRA definition when “deciding whether there has been a violation of any policy, law, or regulation prohibiting discriminatory acts,” and for the, “purposes of determining whether the alleged act was motivated by anti-Semitic intent.” 

The group’s opposition to the legislation is partially rooted in its possible denial of free speech, because if criticising Israel is legally defined as “antisemitic,” every New Jerseyan who does not support Israel could be accused of violating state law. An accusation which could severely negatively impact those involved in the movement to support the people of Palestine. 

Bob Witanek of fightbackbetter.com is clear about the impact on free speech the NJ IHRA bill could have. He states, “The main concern with the NJ IHRA bill, is the very real possibility that NJ politicians and lawfare driven attorneys will use a law conflating anti-zionism with antisemitism to send the cops with false charges after any opponent, be it a candidate challenger or any state resident who advocates against genocide.”

Readers can read and sign the pledge at https://fightbackbetter.com/nj-free-speech-2025-challenge/.

Editor's Note: This is the first in a special two-part PSA report on the serious threat to free speech rights now facing New Jersey residents.