“Content that contains derogatory comments, hate speech, or threats specifically targeting any group or individuals; [or] Content that promotes hate speech, incites racial or gender hatred, or promotes groups or organizations that support such beliefs.”
Having decided that they will actively regulate hate speech and remove what they find to be societally dangerous, in the quest for equality, consistency is key. There should be bare minimums for what we can all agree is dangerous and offensive—and yet as reported by The New York Times the company claimed that the film did undergo review, and that they had concluded it did not violate the prohibition on hate speech.
The IHRA definition is the only internationally accepted definition of antisemitism that there is or ever has been. IHRA’s conduct-based, consensus-driven approach is already used by our federal government and dozens of other countries. It has been endorsed by a growing number of world leaders, including U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, and U.S. presidents of both parties. It has proven to be an essential tool in identifying contemporary manifestations of anti-Jewish rhetoric and actions, and while it is not an exhaustive definition, its use as a standard continues to increase awareness and understanding of the parameters of contemporary anti-Jewish discrimination. Among the examples it highlights: promoting the myth of a world Jewish conspiracy, and accusing Jews of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
Rabbi Dr. Mark Goldfeder, esq. is the director of the National Jewish Advocacy Center.
The views in this article are the writer’s own.
