During our December 22nd meeting, the Colter Fellows stepped into the shoes of legislators, presenting innovative proposals for new laws to address pressing challenges to democracy. These proposals, spanning local and global contexts, sparked lively debates and deep reflections on the state of democracy worldwide. Here’s a glimpse into the thought-provoking ideas they shared. Click on the title to read the proposed laws:

Reviving Diaspora Democracy
Fellow George Karatasios (Greece) championed a proposal to enable mail-in voting for Greeks living abroad. Highlighting the significant challenges faced by the Greek diaspora, he shared a personal anecdote about being required to travel from Tel Aviv to the Greek embassy in Cairo just to cast his vote. This provoked an interesting discussion about whether people abroad should be able to vote – regardless of how long they have lived abroad. Some students proposed that even those who have been outside of their home country for decades may maintain a strong connection, and should therefore have a say in the democratic elections of their home countries. This discussion brought up broader ideas about transnationalism and feelings of belonging to multiple counties at once, and the interplay of different identities within a democracy.

AI, Deepfakes, and the Fight Against Disinformation
Fellow Dana Levinson (Ukraine/Israel) turned the spotlight on the perils of AI and deepfake technology, proposing stringent regulations to combat disinformation, particularly in the context of the Russia-Ukraine war and political campaigns worldwide. Her proposal ignited a debate on whether such regulations should target all regimes equally or focus specifically on authoritarian governments. Opinions diverged, with some arguing for the need to address propaganda in democratic nations as well, citing examples from Israel and the U.S.

Navigating Free Speech in the Digital Age
Amarah Friedman’s (United States) proposal to criminalize hate speech based on disinformation in the U.S. tackled a controversial issue: balancing freedom of speech—a cornerstone of the U.S. Constitution—with the need to combat harmful rhetoric. This led to an impassioned dialogue on where to draw the line and how to safeguard democratic values while addressing misinformation.

Defining Antisemitism: A Legal Leap
Avi Teich (Canada) closed the session with a proposal to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism as a legally binding standard in Canada. This move, aimed at curbing the alarming rise of antisemitism, especially on university campuses, sparked a nuanced discussion. Fellows debated the efficacy of the IHRA definition, the boundaries between legitimate criticism of Israel and antisemitism, and the challenges of codifying an evolving framework into law.