5 ms·

This man is free to protest and boycott (freedom of speech) whomever he likes, that does not entitle him to government contracts (not freedom from consequence).

This man is free to protest and boycott (freedom of speech) whomever he likes, that does not entitle him to government contracts (not freedom from consequence). You don't have a constitutional right to government contracts. I don't like the ban but the argument is silly. EDIT: I'm being rate limited on replies for some reason, I'd like to respond to some comments on here but I cannot. Mayhaps I will try again in a few hours.

bellyfullofbac 5y ago
How can a government contract have a "discrimination" clause in it? What next? How about a MAGA state saying "You have to acknowledge that Trump won the 2020 elections to work with us"? Wow, the comments in here are really opening my eyes to what HN actually is instead of what I thought it was.
- Mikeb85 5y ago
  The clause sounds more like an anti-discrimination clause ie. he isn't allowed to discriminate against a nation while receiving government contracts. No one's stopping him from simply not buying Israeli goods and not saying anything.
  - bellyfullofbac 5y ago
    So, is he or his company allowed to protest against China, as allowed by the 1st amendment? Hmm, no law banning that...
    - Mikeb85 5y ago
      Depends what that entails... Refusing to do business with Chinese-American companies or hire people of Chinese descent likely wouldn't be allowed. Look at the BDS website. They basically equate all Israeli companies with the government. In addition, Israel guarantees the right of return (ie. citizenship) to all Jews. So while BDS claims they're not anti-Semetic, they apply their definitions broadly enough that it's not hard to see what the end result is...
      - bellyfullofbac 5y ago
        Whatever it entails, there is no explicit law saying "If you want to partner with an entity of the State of Texas, you or your company are not allowed to protest against China or Chinese companies". I guess Xi Jinping should buy off Republican lawmakers to get such a law instituted.
        Mikeb85 5y ago
        Please, when Covid broke out there was a ton of media and societal pressure as well as legal actions to NOT discriminate against Asian-Americans and their businesses, despite the CCP being quite hostile towards the west.
        ceejayoz 5y ago
        Discriminating against Asian-Americans is explicitly covered by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Countries are not protected by that act.
        Mikeb85 5y ago
        So how do you protest a country without applying their actions to their people? Because ordinarily Americans would never have direct interaction with the state of Israel.
        ceejayoz 5y ago
        That logic would forbid, say, US sanctions on Iran, Russia, etc.
        Mikeb85 5y ago
        Read up on the actual sanctions to those countries. Here's Russia: https://www.trade.gov/country-commercial-guides/russia-sanctions https://www.trade.gov/country-commercial-guides/russia-sanct... You can do a lot more business with Russia than what BDS suggests you should do with Israel...
  - realce 5y ago
    And only Israel needs the protection? That's a mightily discriminated-against nation. What if this law wasn't about boycotting but said "No contracts with Texas unless you pledge allegiance to Allah" You don't have to actually worship Allah, you just have to say it for the contract to be valid. Any problems there?
- rubyist5eva 5y ago
  This man is the one who is discriminating, he has freedom to do so but he does not have freedom from the consequences. He can't do business with the government, just as I (in theory) could legally refuse to do business with him on the same basis.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > he can't do business with the government, just as I (in theory) could legally refuse to do business with him on the same basis You're not constrained by the First Amendment. Texas is.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - realce 5y ago
    You personally have that right. The state of Texas must provide contracts with no bias and only considering the quality of work the contractor would provide. The state is not allowed to discriminate based on arbitrary attributes of that contractor.
- skinnymuch 5y ago
  HN has always had a mix of people. There’s a distinct portion of people on here who trend toward center right and libertarian ideals. There’s a smaller but still solid segment who are more leftists who also generally oppose big authority in certain ways (some Govt stuff, big tech), but otherwise don’t have much overlap with the former group. I’m of the latter group, but it’s plain HN and even Slashdot in the old days, always had these sort of divides. You’ll never find a place that won’t have these sort of divides unless you specifically go to a site for only your political views.
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> you don't have a constitutional right to government contracts You do have a First Amendment right to not having your freedom of speech abridged by the government. Since 1925, that restriction has been incorporated, i.e. it applies to states like Texas. Government contracts, like laws, are restricted by the Constitution.
- rubyist5eva 5y ago
  Nobody is abridging his First Amendment right. He is free to go and boycott Israel and talk about all of their atrocities as much as he pleases. Doing business with the government is not covered by the First Amendment - he is not being threatened for boycotting Isreal, he just can't sell to them - just like I would be free to not do business with him for the same reason.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > Doing business with the government is not covered by the First Amendment The term you're looking for is the "unconstitutional conditions doctrine" [1]. It's not black and white. But it will be difficult for Texas to argue that U.S. foreign policy vis-à-vis Israel is germane to soil volatility in the Gulf of Mexico. [1] https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2618&context=caselrev https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?ar...
    - skohan 5y ago
      Yeah exactly - it would be very difficult for the state to prove that there's a compelling interest to this clause in the contract besides having a chilling effect on a particular opinion.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - rubyist5eva 5y ago
      The doctrine is not absolute and there are many cases where it is applied seemingly inconsistently. Rust V. Sullivan probably being one of the most notable, where the court upheld a physician's First Amendment right for referring abortions could be constrained on condition of federal funding for their practice. If a person is aware that he/she is waiving their rights, and is not some accidental waiver, the government is not being deceptive or coercive, the person is free to reject the offer from the government without sanction, and the person waiving their right has the capacity to understand that they are doing - then there is no (generally) constitutional violation. In the context of employment or government contracts, the government does not guarantee employment to every person. The fact that a potential employee (for example) may be impoverished and desperate for a paying job does not make the government’s conditions for the job coercive, unless the government specifically created the person’s unemployment.
BlackFly 5y ago
Freedom is precisely freedom from consequences. Consider the prototypical privilege of driving an automobile. You are not free to drive (without a license) precisely because there are consequence if you get caught doing so. If you exclude consequences from your reckoning of freedom, everyone is free to drive and you can say everyone has a freedom to drive (but they don't have the freedom to be free of consequences of driving). Being left alone is precisely what freedom implies otherwise you are just talking about ability.
mcherm 5y ago
I'm just curious, would you have any problem with a similar law that said people were free to protest or speak out about any political party they wanted to but that they could not get a government contract unless they agree to support the Democratic party?
- geoduck14 5y ago
  I'm mostly certain social media groups were blocking pro Trump stuff throughout 2020, and they were doing it out of fear of pressure from Democrats.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    Are those "certain social media groups" the government?
- lr4444lr 5y ago
  It's not legal for domestic political parties to blatantly fund themselves in that way. It IS legal for the department of state to enforce laws around international commerce.
nonameiguess 5y ago
"You're free to do X but that doesn't mean the government can't take adverse action in response" is true of literally all crimes. You're free to go blow up a courthouse, but will be arrested and probably executed. That isn't what freedom means. The Bill of Rights guarantees the government can't legally sanction you for protected speech. Any sanctions at all. It doesn't only keep them from severing your vocal chords to prevent speech entirely. They also can't imprison you, fine you, intimidate you, or prevent you from competing in otherwise open contract bids.

bellyfullofbac 5y ago

How can a government contract have a "discrimination" clause in it? What next? How about a MAGA state saying "You have to acknowledge that Trump won the 2020 elections to work with us"? Wow, the comments in here are really opening my eyes to what HN actually is instead of what I thought it was.

Mikeb85 5y ago
The clause sounds more like an anti-discrimination clause ie. he isn't allowed to discriminate against a nation while receiving government contracts. No one's stopping him from simply not buying Israeli goods and not saying anything.
- bellyfullofbac 5y ago
  So, is he or his company allowed to protest against China, as allowed by the 1st amendment? Hmm, no law banning that...
  - Mikeb85 5y ago
    Depends what that entails... Refusing to do business with Chinese-American companies or hire people of Chinese descent likely wouldn't be allowed. Look at the BDS website. They basically equate all Israeli companies with the government. In addition, Israel guarantees the right of return (ie. citizenship) to all Jews. So while BDS claims they're not anti-Semetic, they apply their definitions broadly enough that it's not hard to see what the end result is...
    - bellyfullofbac 5y ago
      Whatever it entails, there is no explicit law saying "If you want to partner with an entity of the State of Texas, you or your company are not allowed to protest against China or Chinese companies". I guess Xi Jinping should buy off Republican lawmakers to get such a law instituted.
      - Mikeb85 5y ago
        Please, when Covid broke out there was a ton of media and societal pressure as well as legal actions to NOT discriminate against Asian-Americans and their businesses, despite the CCP being quite hostile towards the west.
        ceejayoz 5y ago
        Discriminating against Asian-Americans is explicitly covered by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Countries are not protected by that act.
        Mikeb85 5y ago
        So how do you protest a country without applying their actions to their people? Because ordinarily Americans would never have direct interaction with the state of Israel.
        ceejayoz 5y ago
        That logic would forbid, say, US sanctions on Iran, Russia, etc.
        Mikeb85 5y ago
        Read up on the actual sanctions to those countries. Here's Russia: https://www.trade.gov/country-commercial-guides/russia-sanctions https://www.trade.gov/country-commercial-guides/russia-sanct... You can do a lot more business with Russia than what BDS suggests you should do with Israel...
- realce 5y ago
  And only Israel needs the protection? That's a mightily discriminated-against nation. What if this law wasn't about boycotting but said "No contracts with Texas unless you pledge allegiance to Allah" You don't have to actually worship Allah, you just have to say it for the contract to be valid. Any problems there?
rubyist5eva 5y ago
This man is the one who is discriminating, he has freedom to do so but he does not have freedom from the consequences. He can't do business with the government, just as I (in theory) could legally refuse to do business with him on the same basis.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > he can't do business with the government, just as I (in theory) could legally refuse to do business with him on the same basis You're not constrained by the First Amendment. Texas is.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- realce 5y ago
  You personally have that right. The state of Texas must provide contracts with no bias and only considering the quality of work the contractor would provide. The state is not allowed to discriminate based on arbitrary attributes of that contractor.
skinnymuch 5y ago
HN has always had a mix of people. There’s a distinct portion of people on here who trend toward center right and libertarian ideals. There’s a smaller but still solid segment who are more leftists who also generally oppose big authority in certain ways (some Govt stuff, big tech), but otherwise don’t have much overlap with the former group. I’m of the latter group, but it’s plain HN and even Slashdot in the old days, always had these sort of divides. You’ll never find a place that won’t have these sort of divides unless you specifically go to a site for only your political views.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> you don't have a constitutional right to government contracts You do have a First Amendment right to not having your freedom of speech abridged by the government. Since 1925, that restriction has been incorporated, i.e. it applies to states like Texas. Government contracts, like laws, are restricted by the Constitution.

rubyist5eva 5y ago
Nobody is abridging his First Amendment right. He is free to go and boycott Israel and talk about all of their atrocities as much as he pleases. Doing business with the government is not covered by the First Amendment - he is not being threatened for boycotting Isreal, he just can't sell to them - just like I would be free to not do business with him for the same reason.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > Doing business with the government is not covered by the First Amendment The term you're looking for is the "unconstitutional conditions doctrine" [1]. It's not black and white. But it will be difficult for Texas to argue that U.S. foreign policy vis-à-vis Israel is germane to soil volatility in the Gulf of Mexico. [1] https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2618&context=caselrev https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?ar...
  - skohan 5y ago
    Yeah exactly - it would be very difficult for the state to prove that there's a compelling interest to this clause in the contract besides having a chilling effect on a particular opinion.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - rubyist5eva 5y ago
    The doctrine is not absolute and there are many cases where it is applied seemingly inconsistently. Rust V. Sullivan probably being one of the most notable, where the court upheld a physician's First Amendment right for referring abortions could be constrained on condition of federal funding for their practice. If a person is aware that he/she is waiving their rights, and is not some accidental waiver, the government is not being deceptive or coercive, the person is free to reject the offer from the government without sanction, and the person waiving their right has the capacity to understand that they are doing - then there is no (generally) constitutional violation. In the context of employment or government contracts, the government does not guarantee employment to every person. The fact that a potential employee (for example) may be impoverished and desperate for a paying job does not make the government’s conditions for the job coercive, unless the government specifically created the person’s unemployment.

BlackFly 5y ago

Freedom is precisely freedom from consequences. Consider the prototypical privilege of driving an automobile. You are not free to drive (without a license) precisely because there are consequence if you get caught doing so. If you exclude consequences from your reckoning of freedom, everyone is free to drive and you can say everyone has a freedom to drive (but they don't have the freedom to be free of consequences of driving). Being left alone is precisely what freedom implies otherwise you are just talking about ability.

mcherm 5y ago

I'm just curious, would you have any problem with a similar law that said people were free to protest or speak out about any political party they wanted to but that they could not get a government contract unless they agree to support the Democratic party?

geoduck14 5y ago
I'm mostly certain social media groups were blocking pro Trump stuff throughout 2020, and they were doing it out of fear of pressure from Democrats.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  Are those "certain social media groups" the government?
lr4444lr 5y ago
It's not legal for domestic political parties to blatantly fund themselves in that way. It IS legal for the department of state to enforce laws around international commerce.

nonameiguess 5y ago

"You're free to do X but that doesn't mean the government can't take adverse action in response" is true of literally all crimes. You're free to go blow up a courthouse, but will be arrested and probably executed. That isn't what freedom means. The Bill of Rights guarantees the government can't legally sanction you for protected speech. Any sanctions at all. It doesn't only keep them from severing your vocal chords to prevent speech entirely. They also can't imprison you, fine you, intimidate you, or prevent you from competing in otherwise open contract bids.