4 ms·

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 busines

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.
ceejayoz 5y ago
> Doing business with the government is not covered by the First Amendment... Yes, it is. The government refusing to do business with you solely because of First Amendment-protected speech would be a clear interference with that right.
larrydag 5y ago
To your point it sounds like the law prohibits for the state of Texas to work with companies that choose to boycott Israel. The person's rights are not prohibited but if they choose to take part in those activities then the state of Texas will not work with them. https://www.texastribune.org/2019/05/09/Texas-anti-boycott-israel-law-greg-abbott-hb793/ https://www.texastribune.org/2019/05/09/Texas-anti-boycott-i... This is not unprecedented among states in the U.S. Many states have banned government work and travel to other states and countries due to policy issues. https://apnews.com/article/california-florida-lifestyle-travel-business-048670c6461032de3cb67154d624ab13 https://apnews.com/article/california-florida-lifestyle-trav...
2Gkashmiri 5y ago
i have a question. if the lawmakers made a law "no doing business with a company unless they boycott israel". will that also work? would that be constitutional?
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  This is already the case for North Korea. Not only will the US government refuse to do business with you, they'll charge you with a crime.
  - 2Gkashmiri 5y ago
    i think you answered my question

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.

ceejayoz 5y ago

> Doing business with the government is not covered by the First Amendment... Yes, it is. The government refusing to do business with you solely because of First Amendment-protected speech would be a clear interference with that right.

larrydag 5y ago

To your point it sounds like the law prohibits for the state of Texas to work with companies that choose to boycott Israel. The person's rights are not prohibited but if they choose to take part in those activities then the state of Texas will not work with them. https://www.texastribune.org/2019/05/09/Texas-anti-boycott-israel-law-greg-abbott-hb793/ https://www.texastribune.org/2019/05/09/Texas-anti-boycott-i... This is not unprecedented among states in the U.S. Many states have banned government work and travel to other states and countries due to policy issues. https://apnews.com/article/california-florida-lifestyle-travel-business-048670c6461032de3cb67154d624ab13 https://apnews.com/article/california-florida-lifestyle-trav...

2Gkashmiri 5y ago

i have a question. if the lawmakers made a law "no doing business with a company unless they boycott israel". will that also work? would that be constitutional?

ceejayoz 5y ago
This is already the case for North Korea. Not only will the US government refuse to do business with you, they'll charge you with a crime.
- 2Gkashmiri 5y ago
  i think you answered my question