“X might include Y”, “X frequently Z”, “X is often W”: these phrases do not legally define anything, they’re merely vibes. If I argue that a particular statement is neither Y, Z, or W, that doesn’t logically imply that it isn’t X.
If a censor is trying to determine if a particular post doesn’t contain antisemetic content, this paragraph is not helpful.
Well, they do state one negative criterion:
> However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.
I have never seen this principle successfully cited as an affirmative defense, however. They give examples that contradict this quote, so I don’t think we’re supposed to take it seriously.
If a censor is trying to determine if a particular post doesn’t contain antisemetic content, this paragraph is not helpful.
Well, they do state one negative criterion:
> However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.
I have never seen this principle successfully cited as an affirmative defense, however. They give examples that contradict this quote, so I don’t think we’re supposed to take it seriously.