At a Senate Health Committee hearing prior to the Congressional recess, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) used the humorous statements of Jewish comedians to warn against possible speech codes that could come as a consequence of certain definitions of antisemitism.
Category
š
NewsTranscript
00:00Mr. Chairman. One more amendment. Senator Sanders. Call up Sanders Amendment
00:05Number 5. This amendment provides for the consideration of a definition of
00:16anti-semitism set forth by the International Holocaust Remembrance
00:20Alliance for the Enforcement of Federal Anti-Discrimination Laws Concerning
00:24Education Programs or Activities and for Other Purposes. Once again, I think the
00:30point that we want to make is in our country people have a right to express
00:37their point of view whether it is against the policies of the Israeli
00:42government or any other government or on any other issue.
00:48I'd like to speak for the amendment. Senator Pohl. Senator Pohl. Yes, I'd like to begin by asking
01:02unanimous consent that we enter into the records the names of 400 Jewish American
01:09comedians who have referred to Jews in stereotypical language which perhaps may
01:15be condemned by this bill and I'd like to at least have their names introduced in
01:19the record as with my assertion. Senator Pohl. Without objection. When we think about you know even
01:28saying Jews are funny is a stereotypical allegation and I know some Jewish people
01:33who aren't so I obviously cannot be true of all Jews but I wanted to read one
01:41though that I thought was pretty I was looking through these this morning and
01:43there's just so many I just didn't know how many Jewish comedians we had. This
01:47one's from Joan Rivers. She says I'm Jewish I don't work out if God had wanted us
01:52to bend over he would have put diamonds on the floor and that's obviously very
01:57negative that Jewish people think only of money and stuff but she's Jewish and
02:02it's it's funny but you know or it's not funny but it's just a right to you know
02:06make a joke but most jokes are about stereotypes if you look at most of the
02:11Seinfeld episodes. There's the one on Native Americans and the totem pole and
02:16scalping of tickets and all these things that you're not supposed to say anymore
02:19and you know we become a humorless society if we want to restrict people's
02:24speech and some of it is bad speech and it you know I don't want to I'm not going
02:28to a rally where people say Hamas is great I think Hamas is awful and evil and
02:32committed murder and it's a mass massacre but at the same time I don't want to
02:36prohibit speech and protests on college campuses and I just think it's a huge
02:42mistake and realize that we are enforcing the Department of Education that has
02:46armed police to now enforce this new speech code. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman? Senator Scott?
02:56Thank you. Once again I'll just reiterate the fact that one can say whatever they
03:00want to. That's protected by the Constitution. That's not even in question. The
03:05question is the conduct that follows. If the conduct itself is unlawful the
03:10question is why? The examples in this legislation only provides direction on
03:15why. The conduct, not the speech, is what's the question. I would, Mr. Chairman, briefly
03:23respond to Senator Scott. There are people in jail right now, in jail, who have not had
03:29any due process. You know why? They wrote an op-ed in their student newspaper.
03:33Mr. But according to this law, according to this bill, however, that would not be the
03:39case with this bill. Mr. I'd like to also respond.
03:41Mr. You're talking about something that's already there.
03:42Mr. No, we got to move. The activities in question are already protected by the rule of
03:46construction. Mr. I'd like to have a vote on overruling the chair on whether I can have a minute
03:50to respond to the debate. And so let's have a vote on whether or not the chair gets to just
03:55dictate that we have no freaking debate over the First Amendment. I was looking for a minute,
03:59two minutes to respond to this, and not in a mean way. I like Senator Scott and respect him. I
04:04disagree with him on this, and I want to make a point. We can have the vote and you can speak
04:10while we talk. But by the way, just to let you know, we are calling the floor to see if we can have
04:18a reconsideration of the two-hour limit upon this committee hearing. I would ask none of my colleagues
04:25on the Democratic side to go to the floor to object. I would ask you to contact your floor
04:30leaders and ask them to not object. If you're truly interested in having a fulsome debate and not just
04:38using this as a way to kill the bill, then I would ask you to call your floor leader and ask not to put
04:45the two-hour debate on us. I am operating under a constraint created by the minority. And I'm sorry
04:52about that, but we've got to get through the legislation. Can I simply have one or two minutes
04:55and we don't have to vote? One minute, one minute. I'm not going to play that game. I'm sorry,
04:59then we got to go. Then I make a motion that we overrule the chair on not allowing any kind of
05:06response to debate. I mean, that's just ridiculous. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, two minutes.
05:10Yeah, if the House can declare one day is the whole year, he can take two minutes.
05:14One minute. All right. Very quickly. And I consider Senator Scott to be a friend.
05:21I don't ever would never insult him or say anything bad about him. But the the notion that
05:27all this is about activities and not speech is belied by the 11 examples because the words they
05:33use are calling for. Those are words making mendacious allegation. Those are words accusing Jews.
05:40Those are words denying the fact of the Holocaust. Those are words accusing the Jews as people
05:46words. Every one of the 11 examples of anti-Semitism is words, not actions. And it's interesting when
05:53when the chairman started this whole debate, he said, well, students shouldn't be allowed to take
05:57over campus. Well, absolutely not. And that has nothing to do with speech. I wouldn't let students
06:01put up tents. I wouldn't let them do all that stuff. I wouldn't let them block June students.
06:05I'd put them in jail for doing some of that stuff. But that's not speech.
06:08Correct. But if somebody gets up and says the river to the sea or whatever,
06:13you're going to put them in jail and stop them. That's speech. You can't regulate speech.
06:17Every one of the 11 examples is about speech. It is not about actions.
06:21Senator Bob, will you yield within your two minutes, by the way?
06:26Well, simply stated the the examples point to the why the conduct that follows the speech
06:34is anti-Semitic. The examples, you can say every one of the 11 examples and not have any challenges,
06:42as long as your next act isn't a conduct or harassment. But it doesn't say that.
06:47But the bill itself does. The examples are there simply to give the why.
06:52That's why we should get rid of the examples to get rid of. I'd be for your bill if we got rid of the
06:55examples. Because the examples make it very confusing. The examples are all speech,
07:00not activities. But the examples are not there to suggest that your speech is the issue. It's the
07:04conduct. We don't know that because they're listed as examples of anti-Semitism that apply to the
07:09definition. We could simplify all of this and I'll be on the same page if we got rid of those definitions.
07:14Those definitions make it very, very confusing. We shall vote on the amendment. The chair shall vote no.
07:22The clerk should call the roll. Senator Paul?
07:25Aye. Senator Collins?
07:28Senator Collins?
07:30Senator Collins?
07:35She is a no by proxy. I mean, yes by proxy.
07:40Senator Murkowski?
07:44Senator Mullin?
07:47No by proxy.
07:50Senator Marshall?
07:53Senator Scott?
07:55Senator Hawley?
07:57Senator Tuberville?
07:57No by proxy.
07:59Senator Banks?
08:00No by proxy.
08:02Senator Heasted?
08:03No by proxy.
08:05Senator Moody?
08:06No by proxy.
08:08Senator Sanders?
08:09Aye.
08:12Senator Murray?
08:12Aye by proxy.
08:14Senator Baldwin?
08:15Aye by proxy.
08:18Senator Murphy?
08:18Aye.
08:19Senator Kane?
08:20Aye.
08:21Senator Hassan?
08:23Aye.
08:23Senator Hickenlooper?
08:25Senator Markey?
08:27Senator Kim?
08:29Aye.
08:30Senator Blunt-Rochester?
08:31Aye.
08:32Senator Ulsterbrooks?
08:33Aye.
08:34Senator Murkowski?
08:35No.
08:39Chairman Cassidy?
08:39No.
08:43I have 13 ayes, 10 nays.
08:46Um.
08:46Is that amendment agreed to?
08:48Sounds good.
08:49A night.
08:50Aye.
08:50I could.
08:51No Falls%.
08:53Aye.
08:54No.
08:55No Floyd.
08:55I can't paddle.
08:55No.
08:56Yeah.
08:57No.
08:57No.
08:57No.
08:58No.
08:58I can welcome you.
08:59No.
09:00No.
09:00Alex Oho.
09:01No.
09:02No.
09:02No.
09:02Broadway.
09:04No.
09:04No.
09:05No.
09:06No.
09:06No.
09:08No.
09:08No.
09:09No.
09:09No.
09:10No.
09:10No.
09:10No.
09:11No.
09:12No.
09:12No.
09:13No.
09:14No.
09:15No.
09:15No.
09:15No.
09:16No.
09:16No.