What survived verification

Israel and the United Kingdom have direct criminal speech offenses covering public identification with, or encouragement of, listed organizations and acts. The United States does not, for independent citizen speech.

Israel Combating Terrorism Law §24; UK Terrorism Act 2006 s.1 and Terrorism Act 2000 s.12. US citizen independent praise sits outside Brandenburg and outside 18 U.S.C. §2339B as construed in Holder.

US tools in play are spending conditions, immigration bars, and list-expansion — not a hidden glorification statute.

Title VI CRA is a funding condition. INA §212(a)(3)(B)(i)(VII) is a status rule for aliens. §2339B reaches coordinated material support. No federal independent-praise crime exists.

Listed-speech tools can share an overlapping policy goal: limit public identification with, or encouragement of, listed organizations and acts.

The instruments are not the same law. Israel §24, UK s.1/s.12, and the US tools are Supported examples of different forms — not one product. 'Same policy goal' is a reading of the overlap, not a finding that the statutes are equivalents. Keep this label on every appearance.

Israel is two (really three) speech offenses, not only §24(b)(2). Identification with a group is §24(a). Direct call is §24(b)(1). Praise of a terrorist act is §24(b)(2).

Combating Terrorism Law, 5776-2016, §24(a), (b)(1), (b)(2). Temporary consumption offense is §24(c1).

Kol Ha'am (HCJ 73/53) is the constitutional prior-restraint test (near certainty). The criminal statute uses the lower substantial / real possibility test. Those are not the same test.

HCJ 73/53, 87/53 Kol Ha'am v. Minister of the Interior, 7 P.D. 871 (1953) governs administrative prior restraint. §24 is a post-publication criminal offense with a lower probability threshold.

UK glorification is not 'praise is enough.' Glorification counts only if the public could reasonably infer the conduct should be emulated in existing circumstances.

Terrorism Act 2006 s.1(3)(a)–(b). Contents and circumstances of publication, s.1(4). Actual encouragement is irrelevant, s.1(5)(b).

Holder reaches speech that is training, expert advice, or service provided to, under the direction of, or in coordination with a designated FTO. Independent applause stays outside §2339B.

Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1, 25–26 (2010): plaintiffs 'may say anything they wish on any topic.' Independent advocacy is not prohibited.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title VI of the Higher Education Act are different statutes. Collapsing them is an error.

CRA Title VI is 42 U.S.C. §2000d (race / color / national origin in federally funded programs). HEA Title VI is 20 U.S.C. §1121 et seq. (international-education programs). H.R. 4795, which passed the House on 3 September 2026 and is not law, touches HEA, not CRA Title VI.

H.R. 4795 passed the House on 3 September 2026 and is not law. H.R. 8476 has been reported and has not passed the House, and is not law.

Congress.gov bill status as of 2026-09-05. Every sentence that names a bill carries its status.

The official legal theory of Title VI CRA enforcement is institutional hostile environment / deliberate indifference — not a citizen speech crime, and not a glorification ban by other means.

42 U.S.C. §2000d; EO 13899 §2(b) (do not diminish First Amendment rights); OCR shared-ancestry framework. Analogous Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (1999), deliberate-indifference standard.

Motive and overbreadth of post-October 7 Title VI enforcement are disputed. A claim of systematic viewpoint discrimination at scale is unproven as a dataset. Structural risk of discretionary contextual tests is a fair inference.

Official theory is institutional discrimination (Supported). Viewpoint-discrimination-at-scale lacks a primary statistical record (Unproven). Structural risk from contextual tests is Inference. Keep the three labels.

The immigration endorse / espouse tool is already statute. It is a status rule for non-citizens, not Brandenburg.

INA §212(a)(3)(B)(i)(VII), 8 U.S.C. §1182(a)(3)(B)(i)(VII). Consular application: 9 FAM 302.6.

Post-2025 screening intensification is official direction. Individual-case application is largely unproven in primary statistical form.

EO 14188 (29 Jan 2025) and State / DHS screening direction are Supported as official policy. Counts of visa denials or removals on endorse/espouse grounds remain Unproven without a primary statistical release.

2025 was a record year for US FTO additions. List growth is speech-adjacent. It does not create a citizen glorification crime.

CRS IF10613: more entities added to the FTO list in 2025 than in any previous year since 1997. Designation expands the reach of existing §2339B and INA rules. No new speech statute attached.

Proposed Israel Amendment No. 11 (lower the §24 threshold to 'reasonable possibility') is unproven-as-law until gazette confirmation.

Bill text has circulated. Treat as not law until Sefer HaHukim publication is attached.

US antisemitism tools in play are civil-rights conditions, a DOJ task force, an employment statute, and a civil-rights conspiracy statute — not a hidden glorification crime, and not Israel §24 or UK s.1.

Title VI CRA, Title VII, EO 13899/14188, DOJ Task Force (3 Feb 2025), 18 U.S.C. §241. Official theory remains hostile environment / deliberate indifference.

Education is the current intensity of antisemitism-civil-rights enforcement. Title VI is not an education-only statute. The Civil Rights Restoration Act already defines program or activity as the entire funded entity.

42 U.S.C. §2000d; 42 U.S.C. §2000d-4a. DOJ Task Force first priority is schools and campuses (official targeting choice).

The documented hop off student-funding theory is Title VII on campus employees, not a completed spread into hospitals, transit, or housing.

DOJ Title VII pattern-or-practice investigation of the University of California as employer, 5 March 2025. Still the campus complex. Non-campus Title VI antisemitism dataset Unproven.

GILEE (1992) and JINSA LEEP/HSP (2002) exist as executive law-enforcement exchange programs with Israeli counterparts. They are not speech statutes.

GILEE at Georgia State; JINSA Homeland Security Program. Primary program pages attached.

Capture is a claim about any jurisdiction, not a US-only file. A coordinated capture sequence (rewrite education, then lock LE/regulatory executives through GILEE and JINSA, then drop enforcement on education) is Unproven as a primary record. Instrument dates do not run in that order. 'Capture' is Disputed. Training influence is a fair Inference as structural possibility.

Title VI 1964, GILEE 1992, JINSA LEEP 2002, campus surge 2023–. No primary dataset attached that those programs directed post-October 7 civil-rights enforcement. Presence is not capture in any venue.

Spread of the same hostile-environment test from education to other federally funded operators can happen without a new speech crime. That is Inference as structural risk, not a completed fact.

Same §2000d text already covers every funded program. Observed non-campus antisemitism-Title-VI dataset remains Unproven.

The atlas maps every UN member plus the EU bloc. Quoted clauses are attached for 104 member cells (eight original venues plus ISO quotes). Remaining members carry an instrument pointer — quote Unproven. Open cells are not invented. Partial is not a quote.

A fake 193-country matrix would violate the integrity kernel. Coverage status is the product.

Classification overlays can exhibit the same institutional influence as antisemitism labeling — a sticker plus a contextual hostility test plus a duty to police — without being the same law.

Racial-hatred statutes, IHRA-into-Title-VI, C-9’s statutory hatred definition, and platform ‘harm’ duties are different legal forms. The shared function is a reading.

France Penal Code 421-2-5 is a direct speech crime: public apologie of terrorist acts, or direct provocation. It sits with Israel §24 and UK s.1, not with Title VI.

Code pénal art. 421-2-5. 5 years / 7 years online. Cour de cassation favourable-judgment test. 2029 blocking sentence is not yet in force.

Germany is two layers: §140 Billigung (catalog approval with a public-peace gate) and §130 Volksverhetzung (classification overlay). Do not collapse them.

StGB §140 and §130, official texts.

Canada s.83.221 is counselling a terrorism offence, not glorification. The live overlay is s.319 plus the Combatting Hate Act (C-9), in force 18 July 2026. Bill C-34 is not law.

Justice Laws s.83.221 current to 21 June 2026. C-9 Royal Assent 18 June 2026, in force 18 July 2026. C-34 first reading 10 June 2026.

Australia s.80.2C is a direct advocating-terrorism offence whose definition of advocates includes praise where there is a substantial risk it might lead another person to a terrorist act or listed offence.

Criminal Code (Cth) s.80.2C. Good-faith defence s.80.3. Compilation as of 30 June 2026.

EU FD 2008/919 is public provocation to terrorist offences (speech-crime analog). EU FD 2008/913 is racism/xenophobia (classification overlay). Neither is a member-state penal code.

OJ L 330/21 (2008/919) and OJ L 328/55 (2008/913). Transposition dataset Unproven.

Spain Código Penal art. 578 is a direct speech crime: public glorification or justification of terrorist offences, plus a victim-protection limb. It sits with Israel §24 and France 421-2-5, not with Title VI. Art. 510 is the hate overlay — keep them apart.

LO 10/1995 art. 578 as rewritten by LO 2/2015. BOE consolidado.

England and Wales non-crime hate incidents apply a classification overlay with no criminal offence. The 2023 Home Secretary’s Code is live. A 31 March 2026 College/NPCC reform would replace it. Revocation is Unproven.

NCHI Code of Practice (June 2023); College of Policing announcement 31 March 2026.

Scope creep can delete a protected characteristic as well as add one. For Women Scotland [2025] UKSC 16 holds that sex in the Equality Act 2010 means biological sex. That is pushback against sticker collision, not a speech crime.

[2025] UKSC 16, 16 April 2025.

NGOs, institutes, philanthropies, and official partners can carry a classification overlay through governance, commercial pressure, grants, or enforcement. They are not statutes. Existence is not capture. Capture is a claim about any jurisdiction.

IHRA import via EO 13899 is Supported as an official definition-import. JINSA/GILEE existence is Supported. Funding control, pipeline capture, and a directing agenda remain Unproven / Disputed.

A grant, a 990, or a donor list is not capture. Dollar figures in this pack stay Unproven until a filing is quoted. This applies in every jurisdiction.

No quoted 990 line-items are attached. Do not invent totals.

No featured national brief. The map starts empty. Compare countries you pick. Israel, the United Kingdom, and the United States instruments stay Supported quoted examples — not the product. Citizen speech, status, and institution tests stay separate. Partial and open cells stay unlabeled as quotes.

Atlas coverage cited/partial/open. IL §24, UK s.1/s.12, and US Brandenburg/Holder, INA, and Title VI are attached as examples. A country can have more than one test. Teaching box is a comparison aid, not a featured brief.