4 ms·

There's a good write-up here, which claims the bill only applies to corporations and not individuals. (Which is still inexcusable of course). http://www.thedai

There's a good write-up here, which claims the bill only applies to corporations and not individuals. (Which is still inexcusable of course). http://www.thedailybeast.com/pay-no-mind-to-the-fake-ruckus-about-a-phony-israel-anti-boycott-law http://www.thedailybeast.com/pay-no-mind-to-the-fake-ruckus-...

joveian 9y ago
I was wondering why the existing legislation was not discussed more as it sounds as bad as the proposed extension. So there is an existing Office of Antiboycott Compliance linked by this article: https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/enforcement/oac https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/enforcement/oac While it sounds like that office is focused on companies, it does clearly say in the who is covered section that it applies to individuals.
tptacek 9y ago
What makes you think this is a good writeup? It seems pretty incoherent. * It claims that the Office of Antiboycott Compliance explains that the law affects only corporations. Setting aside the fact that a prohibition on commercial boycotts is no more constitutional than one on individual persons, the OAC explains no such thing; it in fact says the opposite: "The term "U.S. person" includes all individuals, corporations and unincorporated associations resident in the United States... (and so on)". * In pointing to OAC, Michaelson is relying on Commerce's regulatory authority to explain the meaning of a statute. But the whole point of regulatory authority is that the executive branch controls it: the "Foreign Boycotts Prohibition" yields to President Donald J. Trump the authority to issue regulations within his Foreign Boycott authority as he sees fit and without Congressional approval. * It says the proposed law is a "nothingburger" because similar regulation had already been on the books since the 1970s. Leaving aside the fact that the new law makes it statutorily unlawful to respond to a foreign or UN call to boycott Israel, the old law is also horrible and unconstitutional. We don't worry about it because it's rarely enforced. The Senate proposes to breathe new life into it. * The notion that the law will in reality only bind on corporations is undermined by the fact that the law has been used to prosecute labor unions. * Even the specific correction about "furnishing information" makes little sense. The ACLU claims the law penalizes requests for information about boycotts. Michaelson corrects the ACLU: the law only penalizes asking the UN for information about the commercial activities of others --- in other words, the law targets boycotts arranged by the UN and penalizes requests for the UN to supply information... about boycotts. In other words, everyone is wrong: the ACLU, Greenwald, AIPAC and the bill’s sponsors, and Jay Michaelson. But things still appear to be extremely bad.
xbmcuser 9y ago
If supreme Court says money is speech and corporations can't be stopped from donating to political parties I don't see how this law is constitutional

joveian 9y ago

I was wondering why the existing legislation was not discussed more as it sounds as bad as the proposed extension. So there is an existing Office of Antiboycott Compliance linked by this article: https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/enforcement/oac https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/enforcement/oac While it sounds like that office is focused on companies, it does clearly say in the who is covered section that it applies to individuals.

tptacek 9y ago

What makes you think this is a good writeup? It seems pretty incoherent. * It claims that the Office of Antiboycott Compliance explains that the law affects only corporations. Setting aside the fact that a prohibition on commercial boycotts is no more constitutional than one on individual persons, the OAC explains no such thing; it in fact says the opposite: "The term "U.S. person" includes all individuals, corporations and unincorporated associations resident in the United States... (and so on)". * In pointing to OAC, Michaelson is relying on Commerce's regulatory authority to explain the meaning of a statute. But the whole point of regulatory authority is that the executive branch controls it: the "Foreign Boycotts Prohibition" yields to President Donald J. Trump the authority to issue regulations within his Foreign Boycott authority as he sees fit and without Congressional approval. * It says the proposed law is a "nothingburger" because similar regulation had already been on the books since the 1970s. Leaving aside the fact that the new law makes it statutorily unlawful to respond to a foreign or UN call to boycott Israel, the old law is also horrible and unconstitutional. We don't worry about it because it's rarely enforced. The Senate proposes to breathe new life into it. * The notion that the law will in reality only bind on corporations is undermined by the fact that the law has been used to prosecute labor unions. * Even the specific correction about "furnishing information" makes little sense. The ACLU claims the law penalizes requests for information about boycotts. Michaelson corrects the ACLU: the law only penalizes asking the UN for information about the commercial activities of others --- in other words, the law targets boycotts arranged by the UN and penalizes requests for the UN to supply information... about boycotts. In other words, everyone is wrong: the ACLU, Greenwald, AIPAC and the bill’s sponsors, and Jay Michaelson. But things still appear to be extremely bad.

xbmcuser 9y ago

If supreme Court says money is speech and corporations can't be stopped from donating to political parties I don't see how this law is constitutional