Alas, I will try to remember what I just wrote as an online comment to a letter to the editor of the Salt Lake Tribune. I submitted it, and it got gobbled up with a note saying that it would be reviewed and considered before being printed. Maybe, maybe.

The letter to the editor was from Sharifa Al-Qaaydeh. In it, Sharifa argued that in order to try to curb student protests, the "Anti-Semitism Awareness Act" (HR 6090) was approved by the House. The bill, Sharifa said, would expand the definition of antisemitism to include "the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity."

The letter-writer suggested the bill could have a "major impact on free speech across this country."
"Since when did the United States, the land of free speech, include criticizing a foreign government as part of the definition of discrimination?" Sharifa suggested. "This would be equivalent to stating that anyone who criticizes the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia must be Islamophobic."

Okay, now I'm worried. I'm a free-speech advocate. I worry much about a government that would come in and quell criticism by silencing the opinions of the masses. Suddenly, my freedom is at stake and I determine I better look into Sharifa's charges.

The letter contains a link the bill, itself. But, when I click on it and read the bill, I do not find what the letter indicates. No where to be found is the phrase, "the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity." I wonder if perhaps the link takes us to an old version of the bill. So, I look up HR 6090 independently, arriving at the very same text.

Not only does the bill not include the phrase, "targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity," but it specifically says the bill does not license restricting free speech. It closes by saying,  "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to diminish or infringe upon any right protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States."

I become more baffled when I search for news stories online, and every one I find does, indeed, suggest the bill speaks of "targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity." The news stories contain warnings from those who do, indeed, argue that the bill will have a chilling effect on free speech.

I, as a person who fears the day Donald Trump will take power and use whatever means he can to imprison those who disagree with him, become very concerned. No, I do not agree with the protesters when they shout, "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free," which is a call for Israel to be wiped off that portion of the map known as Israel and the land be given entirely to the Palestinians. No, I do not approve of such a sentiment. I find it appalling. But, yes, by all means the protesters should have the right to utter it. Free speech is theirs and they should be allowed to express their views even if the rest of us find those opinions distasteful and shocking.

But, if the bill does not restrict them from saying that, why are we opposing the bill? Read the bill. It isn't in there. What is in the bill, then? What does it say? What does it do? 

Well, we already have laws on the books prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance. HR 6090 would add to that, suggesting that discrimination on the basis of "shared ancestry and ethnic characteristics" is also wrong, also prohibited when government funding is involved. Why would we oppose that? Of course we are against discrimination based on shared ancestry and ethnic characteristics. Why oppose a bill that prevents discrimination based on these two things?

Well, I conclude I must be missing something. There must be something I do not understand. Something has got to be amiss. However, we are told not to believe everything we hear, not to believe everything in the press. Instead of just swallowing what we are told, we are to determine ourselves if those news stories are true. You can't trust the press, we are told. So, I did my due diligence to determine what the actual truth is. If I have made a mistake, I have made a mistake. I'm not certain how that is possible, however, since I have read the bill and it seems quite clear what the bill actually says. 

I await the morning sun to see if the Tribune prints my comment. It does not go unnoticed on me that my views might not coincide with those of the Trib's editors. I consider that my free speech might be being restricted. I did include in my comment a note that the Trib had printed a guest opinion from the director of the Middle East Center at the U. of U., which delved into the conflict between the protesters and authorities, siding with the protesters. I wondered if HR 6090 will have any effect on the funding of the Middle East Center.

Of a side note, earlier in the day, I spoke to an emergency room worker from the University of Utah. Now, the Trib stories have suggested the protests were peaceful, with the protesters doing no violence. The emergency worker I spoke with, however, said the hospital treated an officer (or officers?) who were injured by bottles thrown at them by the protesters. 

To be clear, I have written numerous times against the offenses of Israel upon the civilians. Do not suppose I do not believe such things are wrong -- gravely wrong. But, I am also very aware that Israel is getting hung out to dry as the wicked party while Hamas and its followers are not being held to answer for the atrocities of Hamas.