If the Israeli Knesset adopts an ill-advised bill that would ban the use of the term “Nazi” in most contexts, publication of this editorial in Israel might constitute a crime punishable by a fine of as much as $29,000 and up to six months in jail.

The motivation for the bill, according to reporting in the Jerusalem Post and JTA, was a demonstration in Jerusalem last month in which haredi protesters dressed up in concentration camp uniforms and wore yellow Stars of David on their clothing, bearing the word “Jude.” They were protesting against what they saw as incitement against the haredi community.  

The comparison provoked outrage throughout Israel, especially among its large community of Holocaust survivors and descendants, and prompted Likud MK Shimon Ohayon to propose the bill, which was approved handily on first reading. But no matter how well intentioned Ohayon might have been in introducing this bill, it is extremely ill-advised and should be defeated or abandoned before becoming law.

The bill would criminalize Nazi symbols and name usage other than “for the purpose of learning, documentation, scientific study or historical accounts.” As written, the Times of Israel says, the proposed bill “would be the most far-reaching hate crime law yet introduced in Israel.” In fact, a variety of Israeli politicians and the attorney general oppose the bill, and its potential to withstand judicial scrutiny is questionable.

The safe-harbor categories are quite ambiguous. We’re not sure where media accounts fall, and there’s no exception at all for satire or parody. Several commentators have pointed out that Ohayon’s bill is so sweeping that even such satiric references as the “Soup Nazi” on reruns of “Seinfeld” episodes could be banned under this law’s blunt instrument language.  Mel Brooks’ award-winning film and musical “The Producers” might also be prosecuted under this ban for the classic “Springtime for Hitler,” with its Busby Berkeley-like dance in which the hoofers form a rotating swastika.  

But those examples are almost beside the point. The punishment of speech and symbolism, without being accompanied by an active crime or incitement of direct and immediate criminal conduct, is well beyond the scope of expression that ought be regulated. Even Germany, which after World War II adopted stringent limits on Nazi symbols and literature, has eased its restrictions somewhat in recent years, and correctly so.

We recognize some would be comfortable with certain bans on expression that are generally considered odious or brutally anti-Semitic. The attempt by the National Socialist Party to march in Skokie, Ill. in 1977, replete with swastikas, resulted in a variety of opinions in the Jewish world. The continued racism and hatred toward LGBT exhibited by members of the vile Westboro Baptist Church at various funerals, including those of American military personnel, is enough to turn one’s stomach.

Yet as to those cases and others, the U. S. Supreme Court has opined on the importance of a wide marketplace of public expression and opinion. We agree; efforts to start stripping away open speech one category at a time generally don’t further the goal of engaged discourse within a democratic society. In fact, by stifling open conversation, albeit difficult, they can push elements of society to the fringe, where violent conduct may seem the only or best alternative.

No one said it’s painless to defend free speech in this context, and the anguish of doing so is exhibited in a thoughtful response to the proposed Israeli bill by Abraham Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League. In a letter published in the New York Times last week, Foxman wrote: “On the one hand, if there is any country in the world that needs to make sure that the events of World War II and the Holocaust are not trivialized, it should be Israel, as the nation with the greatest number of Holocaust survivors … On the other hand, as an American civil libertarian, I’m  troubled by the fact that language, even if it is an ugly epithet that cheapens the historical meaning of the Holocaust, can be punished by the law as a criminal act.”

It’s a hard world, with the ability to spread hate by pushing an “enter” button on a computer or phone, and we’ve seen examples of new forms of hatred manifest themselves, such as social media-induced bullying. But despite the vast number of platforms we have to communicate with, our ability to engage in constructive dialogue seems to be receding. More words, not forbidden words, gives us the best chance of remembering history, understanding our shortcomings and having useful discussions. That’s why the Israeli bill should not become law.