Alright, Long Post. TLDR at the bottom.
Lawyers vs. Everybody else
Good answer. I'm assuming to check and see how they are doing, possibly provide medical assistance, etc. Texting the plate number to yourself is also great.
When I have asked this question to attorneys, I have almost universally received some answer to the effect of "check to see if the pedestrian was in a cross walk when hit."
Law school has the sole purpose of churning out attorneys, in a similar fashion to how boot-camp/OCS/the Academies churn out sailors/soldiers/marines/airmen. They break down who you used to be, so they can turn you into what they want.
One of the first assignments I was given when I first arrived at the law firm I work at was to write a legal blog on some international stuff we were engaged in. So I wrote it, turned it in, and received it back with "a few minor editorial revisions"...the whole thing was covered in red ink...anyway, this continued for a few drafts until, finally, the attorney sat me down and said,
"Alright, I want you to remember everything you learned about writing in college. Got it? Ok. Now remember everything you learned about writing in high school. Got it? Good. Forget all of that and just give me the facts." I did so and we published it the same day.
My issue was, I was trained to use fluff and enticing language to draw the reader in. Legal writing is boring and fact based. Yet, it's also an art. Make your point in as few words as possible so your argument is difficult to dissect and attack. There's a method to their boring madness.
My goal in asking the question was to prove a point. That point, that Attorney's just see the world differently and they are the individuals who know how the law works. We can sit here all day and give our opinions about what should or shouldn't be the case...but they actually engage with it and get results and not all of them are created equal. #OJ
Counter Points
You cited two key things:
1) 1st amendment (specifically free speech)
2) Discrimination Laws
1) Free Speech has limits in the US. In fact, the famous "
Can't yell fire in a theater" example was used to justify the US government convicting a couple of Commies back in 1919 for spreading anti-war communist propaganda based on the "clear and present danger" concept. That said, I agree that it is first for a reason.
"Why should the Jewish people and one of their organizations control speech?" They shouldn't. However, I'm also not gonna ask a white person what it's like to experience or define racism against the black community. I think it's fair that a Jewish org gives their definition and then our elected reps should decide what to do with it, which is what's happening.
2) It's also not creating a new law. It's just specificying a term for usage on the
Civil Rights Act, which has been expanded in the past to strengthen enforcement. So the precident for this kind of move has already been laid. Specificity and ambiguity can benefit an attorney's case depending on what he is trying to accomplish. If you are trying to nail somebody for anti-semitism, defining the term more clearly seems like the way to go tho.
Current Thoughts
I am currently leaning toward it being a
bad idea to sign into law, and here are my current thoughts at to why.
1) I think Anti-Semitism is a very real problem and should be dealt with. However, I don't think anti-semitism is the primary issue that is causing the idiocy on college campuses atm. I think the primary problem is the Neo-Marxist ideology that has indoctrinated far more of our youth than we should be comfortable with. As a result, implementing anti-Marxist policies, like Ron Desantis in Florida, seems like a better solution to the problem, even with the 1st amendment concerns relating to some of those laws.
2) I can't forget history. Title IX, the Patriot Act, FISA, the Civil Rights Act, etc. are all laws that I agree with the premise of, but that have also been misused by the government for nefarious purposes.
A law professor once told me that whenever you think about creating a new law, ask if it's worth somebody dying over. Because, at the end of the day, somebody is going to come to enforce that law and they will, 1) be armed themself, or 2) they will be backed by somebody that is.
TLDR: I am currently unconvinced that signing this into law is worth somebody that I disagree with dying over. I am currently unconvinced that the passing of this law would make the lives of Jewish individuals safer. I am currently unconvinced that the government wouldn't be able to weaponize this against other groups that it deems problematic. That's just where I'm at atm.
