The Executive Order Mamdani canceled specifically said that the First Amendment was the real criterion on speech ~ Elder Of Ziyon

Tuesday, January 06, 2026

The Executive Order Mamdani canceled specifically said that the First Amendment was the real criterion on speech

Critics of the IHRA working definition of antisemitism, including Mayor Mamdani, claim that the definition chills free speech because it says some anti-Zionist speech is antisemitic.

It is not true, as we've pointed out many times before and anyone who actually reads the definition can see for themselves. But the lies have become so pervasive that even media that should know better parrots the false claim. The New York Times wrote on Sunday "One of the executive orders that Mr. Mamdani revoked had codified a contentious definition of antisemitism, proposed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, that equated some criticism of Israel with hatred of Jewish people." No, it didn't; it equated demonization of Israel with hatred of the Jewish people. IHRA says explicitly that criticism of Israel similar to any other country is not antisemitic.

But the executive order that Mamdani canceled had an additional clause to protect freedom of speech:

This order is not intended to restrict speech or conduct that is protected under the First Amendment. Antisemitic acts are criminal only when they are so defined by law, and this order does not establish civil or criminal liability for any acts.

If it clearly says that any speech protected by the First Amendment is allowed, then what is the problem? If a teacher is called out for antisemitism for teaching that Zionism is a "racist endeavor," and that statement is not antisemitic, they should have an ironclad defense from this paragraph, right?

And this is not the first time this has happened,. Donald Trump's own executive order from 2019 supporting the IHRA definition also had a similar clause:

[A]gencies shall not diminish or infringe upon any right protected under Federal law or under the First Amendment. As with all other Title VI complaints, the inquiry into whether a particular act constitutes discrimination prohibited by Title VI will require a detailed analysis of the allegations.

That's two layers of lies from the anti-Israel crowd - of the IHRA definition and of the regulations and orders saying to use it as a guide.

If they felt that the examples in the IHRA quash legitimate speech, one would think they would be itching to test this in court and destroy IHRA altogether. But they don't. Instead, they lie about IHRA and the regulations invoking it - and they repeat the lies so incessantly that mainstream media (and AI, and Wikipedia...) believe them.

Because why argue facts when there is no downside to lying?