Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Citation / explanation needed.

ADL's stated mission is "To stop the defamation of the Jewish people, and to secure justice and fair treatment to all..." It seems like the ADL has legitimate work it can be doing, unless you think Jews and all people are treated fairly. I don't think you're saying that, and I do think you're saying it's not doing the work that it could be doing. Could you say more about that?

"Of the 1,715 victims of anti-religious hate crimes:

    60.2 percent were victims of crimes motivated by offenders’ anti-Jewish bias."
https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2019/topic-pages/victims

Anti-Jewish hate-crimes make up a majority of the anti-religious hate crimes in the US. (You could argue they should be classified as "Racial/ethnicity/ancestry bias" but that's another discussion).

The statistics aren't perfect - not every crime or possible crime is reported to law enforcement, and not every law enforcement agency in the US shares hate crime information with the federal government. A recent law changed that so it's required instead of optional, so likely more will be doing so in the future.



ADL has engaged in lobbying for policies that unconstitutionally conflict with the first ammendment.

Whatever their legitimate grievances, that's not an acceptable response.


I think you’re referring to BDS and anti-BDS laws. Is that right? Are you referring to something else in addition to those?

Do anti-BDS laws mean the ADL has an identity crisis? Or they should be having one? They seem related to their mission.

I’m not a lawyer, and I’m not an expert in the first amendment, its case law, or anti-BDS laws. You might be right that some or all anti-BDS laws violate some first amendment right in some way. I don’t know which analogy is the right one to apply to anti-BDS laws, something different legal scholars and lawyers argue about. It seems like reasonable people can disagree about what is constitutional and what is not here. Maybe the supreme court will rule on it specifically, and even then it might still be the case that reasonable people can disagree.


> Whatever their legitimate grievances, [conflict with the first ammendment]'s not an acceptable response.

That's perfectly good reasoning, but:

> ADL has engaged in lobbying for policies that unconstitutionally conflict with the first ammendment.

as to your premises, again:

> > Citation / explanation needed.


The ADL has opposed the recognition of the Armenian Genocide. If you wouldn't take a Holocaust-denying organization seriously, you shouldn't take the ADL seriously.


It has, but it quite clearly recognizes it as genocide currently.

"So, let me be crystal clear: the first genocide of the 20th century is no different. What happened in the Ottoman Empire to the Armenians beginning in 1915 was genocide. The genocide began with the ruling government arresting and executing several hundred Armenian intellectuals. After that, Armenian families were removed from their homes and sent on death marches. The Armenian people were subjected to deportation, expropriation, abduction, torture, massacre and starvation.

What happened to the Armenian people was unequivocally genocide.

We believe that remembering and educating about any genocide – Armenian, the Holocaust, Bosnia, Rwanda, and others is a necessary tool to prevent future tragedies."

https://www.adl.org/blog/adl-on-the-armenian-genocide

"In 2007, Abraham Foxman came under criticism for his stance on the Armenian genocide. ADL had previously described it as a "massacre" and an "atrocity", but not as a "genocide".[134] Foxman had earlier opposed calls for the US Government to recognise it as a "genocide".[135]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Defamation_League#Armenia...




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: