COLUMBUS, Ohio — A controversial new bill moving through the Ohio legislature, Senate Bill 297, has reignited debate over the balance between combating hate and preserving free speech. While the bill aims to define antisemitism and expand hate crime laws, critics warn that its broad language risks stifling legitimate political dissent and free expression, especially regarding criticism of Israeli policies. The measure’s progress highlights ongoing tensions in addressing discrimination while upholding constitutional freedoms.
Bill Aims to Expand Hate Crime Definitions
The legislation, which passed the Ohio Senate on December 11 by a 27-4 vote, proposes amending state law to include riots and aggravated riots motivated by race, color, religion, or national origin under the offense of ethnic intimidation. Under the bill, these offenses would carry enhanced penalties, raising a riot-related charge to a felony if it is deemed to be motivated by bias.
Additionally, the bill adopts the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism for use by state agencies in investigations and enforcement actions. The IHRA definition includes examples of antisemitism such as “making dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews” or “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination.”
The bill has been referred to the House Government Oversight Committee for further review.
Critics Raise Free Speech Concerns
Civil rights organizations, including the ACLU of Ohio and CAIR-Ohio, have voiced strong opposition to the bill, arguing that its adoption of the IHRA definition could lead to suppression of free speech. The IHRA’s inclusion of criticism of Israel as a potential example of antisemitism has drawn particular scrutiny.
“This bill dangerously undermines our fundamental rights to free speech and political dissent,” said Faten Odeh, Executive Director of CAIR-Ohio. “While we all support reducing bigotry, this bill conflates legitimate criticism of government policies with hatred, threatening free expression and activism.”
The ACLU of Ohio echoed these concerns, pointing out that the bill’s language could create confusion about what speech is protected. “An ordinary person would not know what speech is, or is not, a violation of the law. It is therefore vague and overbroad and violates the U.S. and Ohio Constitutions,” the organization said in a statement.
Critics also emphasized that the First Amendment protects even controversial or offensive speech, cautioning that laws targeting certain viewpoints could set a dangerous precedent.
Moving Forward
Supporters of the bill argue that adopting the IHRA definition provides much-needed clarity in identifying and addressing antisemitism. However, opponents counter that the definition is too broad and risks being used to silence dissent rather than combat hate.
As SB 297 moves to the House Government Oversight Committee, lawmakers face mounting pressure to ensure that efforts to address hate crimes do not infringe on constitutional freedoms. The outcome of this debate could shape the future of free speech protections in Ohio while influencing how other states tackle the rise of antisemitism and hate crimes.