Not in the slightest, explains Eugene Kontorovich—despite claims to the contrary made by supporters of the Boycott, Divest, and Sanction (BDS) movement as well as by Abraham Foxman, the outgoing director of the Anti-Defamation League:

In the latest act of a decades-long fight against discriminatory boycotts of Israel, two states have passed, and several are considering, legislation that protects their taxpayers from inadvertently underwriting [anti-Israel] boycotts. . . . These laws have bipartisan support, and they passed unanimously. They enjoy the broad support of mainstream Jewish organizations. Yet some . . . have expressed concerns that legislation that “bars BDS activity by private groups” would raise First Amendment concerns.

Such concerns are entirely misplaced. The current legislation by states does not bar any BDS activity and does not otherwise violate the First Amendment. Indeed, these laws are far milder versions of longstanding federal anti-boycott laws. . . . The new laws only relate to state contracting and public pension funds’ investments. They simply limit a state’s business relationships with companies that discriminatorily limit their own business relations. These laws do not prohibit or penalize any kind of speech. Proponents of boycotting Israel are free to call for such boycotts, encourage others to join them, and participate in them. As the BDS movement itself admits, these laws will not prohibit their activities.

Moreover, the First Amendment allows states to place conditions on doing business with them. Anti-discrimination restrictions on government contractors are commonplace and a normal requirement for government funding. The federal government and many states require contractors and subcontractors to not discriminate on, among other things, “the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.” . . . [A]s President Barack Obama said when signing the executive order prohibiting such discrimination in government contracts, the federal government is not required to “subsidize discrimination.”

In October, a young Mauritanian national murdered an Orthodox Jewish man on his way to synagogue in Chicago. This alone should be sufficient sign of the rising dangers of anti-Semitism. Nathan Diament explains how the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act (AAA) can, if passed, make American Jews safer:

We were off to a promising start when the AAA sailed through the House of Representatives in the spring by a generous vote of 320 to 91, and 30 senators from both sides of the aisle jumped to sponsor the Senate version. Then the bill ground to a halt.

Fearful of antagonizing their left-wing activist base and putting vulnerable senators on the record, especially right before the November election, Democrats delayed bringing the AAA to the Senate floor for a vote. Now, the election is over, but the political games continue.

You can’t combat anti-Semitism if you can’t—or won’t—define it. Modern anti-Semites hide their hate behind virulent anti-Zionism. . . . The Anti-Semitism Awareness Act targets this loophole by codifying that the Department of Education must use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of anti-Semitism in its application of Title VI.