In a bold yet peaceful demonstration of civic engagement, a group of determined Ohioans gathered Tuesday in the Rotunda of the Ohio Statehouse to take action against the proposed amendment to H.B. 315. This amendment, which incorporates the controversial IHRA definition of antisemitism, has sparked widespread concern over its potential impact on free speech and the First Amendment.

The sit-in was carefully planned as a way to both garner media attention and directly address legislators. Sitting in a circle beneath the grand dome of the Statehouse, participants passed out call scripts and worked together to make phone calls and write emails to their representatives. This unique form of advocacy transformed the Rotunda into a hub of collective action, with citizens uniting their voices in the very space where decisions are made.

As representatives walked by, participants continued to make calls and send emails, ensuring their presence and concerns were impossible to ignore. This wasn’t just a call for attention—it was a clear message to lawmakers: “We’re here, we’re engaged, and we demand to be heard.”

During the sit-in, the group experienced pushback when an individual, possibly a lobbyist, interrupted their peaceful action. He made troubling statements, including calling Palestinians “not people” and accusing the group of being “terrorist sympathizers.” Despite these inflammatory remarks, the participants maintained their focus, recording the incident and continuing their calls. Representative Hoops witnessed the confrontation, and one of the organizers, Jay, was on a call with Representative Grim at the time, ensuring that the interruption was heard.

After the sit-in concluded, the group escalated their efforts with a peaceful picket. Holding signs, they marched around the Rotunda, chanting slogans such as “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” “Israel is a terrorist state,” and “Israel is an apartheid state.” These chants were not just expressions of solidarity but also warnings about the implications of the legislation. If passed, these forms of speech could potentially be criminalized under the amendment’s provisions.

This second phase of the demonstration was powerful and dynamic, amplifying the group’s message and ensuring it could not be ignored. By moving from a sit-in to a picket, the participants showed resilience and adaptability, doubling down on their commitment to protecting free speech and advocating for justice.

The sit-in and picket remind us of the strength of peaceful, organized advocacy in the face of opposition. They exemplify how citizens can push back against attempts to silence dissent and fight for their constitutional rights, proving that even under challenging circumstances, their voices will not be silenced.