Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Hundreds testify against bill to adopt IHRA definition into Ohio law, citing First Amendment risks
Loading...
Summary
More than two dozen public witnesses, Jewish and non‑Jewish, told the Senate Judiciary Committee that Senate Bill 87’s adoption of an IHRA‑style working definition of antisemitism — and its linkage to ethnic intimidation and riot provisions — would chill political speech about Israel and risk unconstitutional enforcement.
Senate Bill 87 drew the longest portion of the hearing, with dozens of opponent witnesses — including Jewish community members, civil liberties groups, campus affiliates, veterans, faith leaders and Palestinian‑American speakers — urging the Senate Judiciary Committee to reject the bill.
The bill would, proponents say, adopt a definition of antisemitism similar to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition and link it to Ohio’s anti‑discrimination and ethnic intimidation statutes. Opponents told the committee that embedding IHRA‑style examples into enforceable law or investigative guidance risks chilling constitutionally protected political speech and academic debate. ‘‘SB 87 adapts the IHRA definition and ties it to Ohio's ethnic intimidation statute ... That means that I cannot share what happened to my grandparents,’’ testified Johara QT Fan, a Palestinian American community organizer (opponent testimony).
Multiple opponents cited warnings from Kenneth Stern, the principal drafter of the IHRA working definition, that the text was never intended to be codified as law. Gary Daniels of the ACLU of Ohio said the bill ‘‘rejects any attempt to chill, limit, and outlaw constitutionally protected free speech’’ and warned that the bill’s contemporary examples could be read to encompass criticism of Israeli government policies.
Witnesses raised two recurring concerns: (1) attaching the definition to anti‑discrimination and ethnic intimidation provisions could make ordinary political speech evidence of motive in criminal investigations; and (2) adding riot and aggravated riot as qualifying offenses could allow law enforcement to investigate or elevate charges against protests or assemblies over contested speech. Several Jewish witnesses said they oppose the bill because it conflates criticism of Israel with hatred of Jewish people and would harm free expression within Jewish and academic communities.
Proponents of the bill did not present testimony in the public‑comment block summarized here; committee members asked questions of witnesses but no committee vote was recorded at this hearing. Committee staff distributed numerous written proponent and opponent testimonies for members to review.
