I would also like to see the text. Based on the NY Times summary, it does seem to go far beyond Obama-era guidelines which were pretty careful about constitutional protection of speech.https://twitter.com/jbarro/status/1204589352350896129 …
-
-
It's not about whether Jews are protected, I think - that's well-established. It's whether hostility towards Israel violates those protections.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
That only covers actual anti-Semitism; this is about "anti-Semitism"
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
If you're referring to the Obama DOJ ruling referred to here, there's a crucial difference in that it discusses discrimination on the basis of "actual OR PERCEIVED" race/ethnicity/foreign connection (emphasis mine). The Trump order does not.https://twitter.com/MattGertz/status/1204584697050869760 …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
What this mostly does is promote the idea that opposition to Israeli government policies and actions is antisemitism.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.