Antisemitism Law Backlash: 5 Shocking Ways Ohio’s SB 87 Could Crush Free Speech

Ohio’s Senate Bill 87 has sparked intense debate by aiming to codify a state definition of antisemitism that includes comparing Israeli policies to Nazi Germany—a move critics argue conflates legitimate political criticism with hate speech. The legislation, framed as a tool to combat prejudice, risks silencing dissent on Israel-Palestine issues, particularly in universities and public forums, where nuanced debates over human rights and state actions often unfold.

Opponents highlight a historical contradiction: figures like Albert Einstein once likened early Israeli political factions to fascist groups, illustrating how past critiques now deemed antisemitic under SB 87 were rooted in ethical accountability, not bigotry. Jewish advocates warn the bill undermines Jewish traditions of debate and dissent, threatening voices within their own communities who challenge Israel’s policies. By broadly labeling criticism as hate speech, the law could chill academic freedom, advocacy, and protest, eroding protections for free expression.

Supporters argue clearer definitions are needed to address rising antisemitism, but critics stress the distinction between targeting Jewish people and scrutinizing a government’s conduct. The bill reflects a national trend of conflating anti-Zionism with antisemitism, raising concerns about suppressing solidarity with Palestinians. Balancing hate speech prevention with free speech rights remains a fragile democratic challenge—one requiring precision to avoid punishing moral critique in the name of combating prejudice. 

Antisemitism Law Backlash: 5 Shocking Ways Ohio’s SB 87 Could Crush Free Speech

A contentious legislative proposal in Ohio has ignited a debate over the boundaries between combating antisemitism and safeguarding free speech. Senate Bill 87, currently under scrutiny, seeks to define antisemitism in state law, partly by classifying comparisons of Israeli policies to Nazi Germany as hate speech. Critics argue the bill risks silencing legitimate political discourse, echoing concerns that it could criminalize dissent rather than address genuine prejudice.  

The Bill’s Controversial Core 

SB 87 adopts a definition of antisemitism that includes “drawing comparisons between contemporary Israeli policy and that of the Nazis.” While proponents argue this clarifies protections against hate speech, opponents like columnist Leila Atassi warn it blurs the line between criticizing a government and attacking a religious or ethnic group. The bill’s language could impact universities, public institutions, and even individuals engaging in debates about Israel’s actions in Gaza or the West Bank.  

A Historical Parallel: Einstein’s Warning 

The legislation’s critics highlight a striking historical irony. In 1948, Albert Einstein and 27 other Jewish intellectuals signed a letter condemning Menachem Begin’s Freedom Party (a precursor to today’s Likud) as “akin to Nazi and Fascist parties” for its militarism and expansionist tactics during Israel’s founding. Under SB 87, such analogies—rooted in historical critique—could be deemed antisemitic, raising questions about how past and present dissent are judged.  

Silencing Diverse Voices, Including Jewish Dissent 

Atassi emphasizes that the bill’s broad wording threatens not only pro-Palestinian advocates but also Jewish voices critical of Israel’s policies. During hearings on a similar failed bill (SB 297), Jewish Ohioans testified that Judaism itself thrives on debate and dissent, values they argue SB 87 undermines. By conflating anti-Zionism with antisemitism, the bill risks alienating Jewish communities whose ethical traditions often prioritize holding power to account.  

The Bigger Picture: Chilling Free Speech 

Free speech advocates warn that SB 87 could set a dangerous precedent. If labeling Israel’s actions as “apartheid” or “genocide” becomes legally actionable, academic discussions, protests, and even humanitarian critiques may face censorship. This chilling effect extends beyond Ohio, reflecting a national trend where 35 states have adopted similar definitions of antisemitism, often amid heightened tensions over the Israel-Palestine conflict.  

The Path Forward 

While combating antisemitism remains urgent, critics urge lawmakers to distinguish between hate speech and political criticism. Narrowly tailored laws that target explicit threats or harassment, rather than policy debates, could protect vulnerable groups without stifling discourse. As Ohio grapples with SB 87, the challenge lies in upholding both free expression and the fight against bigotry—a balance essential to democratic integrity.  

In Summary 

Ohio’s SB 87 underscores a global struggle to navigate identity, power, and free speech in polarized times. By revisiting historical critiques like Einstein’s, we’re reminded that dissent has long been a tool for accountability—one that laws must protect, not suppress. As Atassi notes, the true test of democracy is not in silencing uncomfortable ideas, but in fostering a space where even the fiercest debates can unfold without fear.