According to the legislative counsel’s digest, most of what the bill prohibits is already illegal and the new prohibitions appear to be minor and in line with the existing ones. I’m not familiar enough with California law to judge how accurate that is, but if it is accurate then I’m not sure what exactly the ACLU’s objections are. (Their own webpage about the bill contains no details.) Is there an article with specific examples of what could legally be taught before this law was passed but cannot be legally taught now?
There’s a lot of stuff in here that can be used to target Gaza occupation protests as hate crimes and a lot of avenues for people uncomfortable with criticism of Israel to report “antisemitism” and enables schools and law enforcement to respond.
Criticism of a government that is committing genocide is NOT the same as hatred toward a race or religion and FUCK the people trying (blatantly or subtly) to redefine things that way with a rake. Advocating for a free Palestine (as a political entity) is NOT the same as hating Jews and trying to say it is is a form of rhetorical violence. This bill wants to help make that state sponsored and give it teeth. You can look through the text and see the places that are designed for exactly that. Not in provocative or objectionable ways, not in a vacuum. But taken in the context of our current political climate, it’s not hard to see.
