5 ms·

I'm kind of confused. It's not the first article that I have encountered on this, but they all seem very light on specifics. What/where is the "particular lega

by netcan 5y ago

I'm kind of confused. It's not the first article that I have encountered on this, but they all seem very light on specifics. What/where is the "particular legal clause? This article veers from there into a personal biography. Is it part of his contract, a local bylaw? What's the legality or legal history of such actions? Sigh. So much journalism is just tweet + fluff.

lakecresva 5y ago
Apparently this is the statute: https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/GV/htm/GV.2271.htm https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/GV/htm/GV.2271.htm
- netcan 5y ago
  I see. So this statute requires a contract clause. Are there other such statutes, requiring certain clauses as boilerplate?
  - CodesInChaos 5y ago
    Slightly different, but the federal government uses highway funding to entice/force states to introduce certain laws (e.g. the 21 year minimum drinking age): https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/four-times-the-government-held-highway-funding-hostage/454167/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/four-ti...
CodesInChaos 5y ago
There are many variants of these "don't boycott Israel" laws, which try to find ways around the unconstitutionality of such laws. It sounds like the variant in the article is a state level law that requires the state to not contract with parties boycotting Israel. So in the end this is part of his contract with the government, but the city has no choice but to include such a clause. For example a similar law in a different state was found unconstitutional by a Circuit Court: > The US District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas heard the case involving Act 710, a statute that forbids state parties from establishing contractual agreements with companies that boycott Israel. > The Court ultimately concludes that supporting boycotts of Israel is protected under the Constitution and that Act 710 violates First Amendment rights. https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/eighth-circuit-state-law-forbidding-government-contractors-from-boycotting-israel-is-unconstitutional https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/eighth-circuit-state-law... But these kind of laws are controversial and different courts have come to other conclusions.
- netcan 5y ago
  I guess criticising journalism is hack at this point, but these little examples still flabbergast me. It's a long article, but it's mostly an article about the person. Almost no information about the actual issue at hand. Where is the journalistic curiosity. How does the clause work? How many contracts is it in? Are there other boilerplate clauses that work like this? What about other states? What about other lawsuits. I assume a lone Houston businessman isn't the only affected party taking legal action. It's terrible that reading articles on a topic doesn't actually inform you about it.
  - bjourne 5y ago
    Journalists don't have time and magazines don't have money to spend. If you are interested in the topic, see the Copy, Paste, Legislate expose done by USA Today in collaboration with a few other papers: https://eu.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/investigations/2019/07/17/lawmakers-ok-with-copying-model-bills/3424549002/ https://eu.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/investigations/2019/07... The part about the anti-boycott laws is here: https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2019/05/01/statehouse-model-bills-bds-protest-bans/3575083002/ https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2019/05/01... There has been a lot of legal analysis about this topic too. Most believe that these anti-boycott laws are unconstitutional and will (eventually) be struck down by the Supreme Court. But it may take years or decades before a final decision is made.
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
I also don't see why this is so newsworthy. This alleged contract clause seems a lot like the sorts of nebulous "we reserve the right to back out without penalty if you do something not befitting our brand image" clauses you get when providing services for prestigious institutions but with a more government style legalese applied to it. Basically Houston doesn't want to potentially deal with the blow-back of a contractor is taking a particular stance on a particular political issue. It would be unsurprising if cities like Boston have similar clauses barring contractors from expressing strong anti-lgbtq or anti public employee union political sentiments. At the end of the day none of this really matters. The city will a ways terminate a relationship with a contractor if they cause political problems. The contract clause just makes the inevitable lawsuit slightly more uphill. Houston probably doesn't really care for the state's law on this issue so odds are they will likely never try and enforce these specific terms anyway.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  Texas has a specific law targeting BDS, HB 89. The clause is likely quite specific to this. https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/85R/billtext/html/HB00089I.htm https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/85R/billtext/html/HB00089I...
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    You can put anything in a contract. If you're really creative you might get a chuckle out of the judge. The realpolitik move here is for Hassouna to include the clause so the bureaucrat evaluating his submission can check the box without sticking their neck out and then do what he damn well pleases. The state isn't gonna take him to court for the same reason the states you cheer-lead for only ever use their gun laws to secure better plea deals and never actually prosecute them in court.
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      > The state isn't gonna take him to court... It's quite clear that's not the case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws#Constitutional_challenges https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws#Constitutional_c...
maccolgan 5y ago
It's a standard funding rule so it seems, usual way to sneak in random provisions sidestepping usual democratic process a la minimum drinking age, Medicaid policies, etc.

by netcan 5y ago

lakecresva 5y ago

Apparently this is the statute: https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/GV/htm/GV.2271.htm https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/GV/htm/GV.2271.htm

netcan 5y ago
I see. So this statute requires a contract clause. Are there other such statutes, requiring certain clauses as boilerplate?
- CodesInChaos 5y ago
  Slightly different, but the federal government uses highway funding to entice/force states to introduce certain laws (e.g. the 21 year minimum drinking age): https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/four-times-the-government-held-highway-funding-hostage/454167/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/07/four-ti...

CodesInChaos 5y ago

There are many variants of these "don't boycott Israel" laws, which try to find ways around the unconstitutionality of such laws. It sounds like the variant in the article is a state level law that requires the state to not contract with parties boycotting Israel. So in the end this is part of his contract with the government, but the city has no choice but to include such a clause. For example a similar law in a different state was found unconstitutional by a Circuit Court: > The US District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas heard the case involving Act 710, a statute that forbids state parties from establishing contractual agreements with companies that boycott Israel. > The Court ultimately concludes that supporting boycotts of Israel is protected under the Constitution and that Act 710 violates First Amendment rights. https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/eighth-circuit-state-law-forbidding-government-contractors-from-boycotting-israel-is-unconstitutional https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/eighth-circuit-state-law... But these kind of laws are controversial and different courts have come to other conclusions.

netcan 5y ago
I guess criticising journalism is hack at this point, but these little examples still flabbergast me. It's a long article, but it's mostly an article about the person. Almost no information about the actual issue at hand. Where is the journalistic curiosity. How does the clause work? How many contracts is it in? Are there other boilerplate clauses that work like this? What about other states? What about other lawsuits. I assume a lone Houston businessman isn't the only affected party taking legal action. It's terrible that reading articles on a topic doesn't actually inform you about it.
- bjourne 5y ago
  Journalists don't have time and magazines don't have money to spend. If you are interested in the topic, see the Copy, Paste, Legislate expose done by USA Today in collaboration with a few other papers: https://eu.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/investigations/2019/07/17/lawmakers-ok-with-copying-model-bills/3424549002/ https://eu.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/investigations/2019/07... The part about the anti-boycott laws is here: https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2019/05/01/statehouse-model-bills-bds-protest-bans/3575083002/ https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2019/05/01... There has been a lot of legal analysis about this topic too. Most believe that these anti-boycott laws are unconstitutional and will (eventually) be struck down by the Supreme Court. But it may take years or decades before a final decision is made.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago

I also don't see why this is so newsworthy. This alleged contract clause seems a lot like the sorts of nebulous "we reserve the right to back out without penalty if you do something not befitting our brand image" clauses you get when providing services for prestigious institutions but with a more government style legalese applied to it. Basically Houston doesn't want to potentially deal with the blow-back of a contractor is taking a particular stance on a particular political issue. It would be unsurprising if cities like Boston have similar clauses barring contractors from expressing strong anti-lgbtq or anti public employee union political sentiments. At the end of the day none of this really matters. The city will a ways terminate a relationship with a contractor if they cause political problems. The contract clause just makes the inevitable lawsuit slightly more uphill. Houston probably doesn't really care for the state's law on this issue so odds are they will likely never try and enforce these specific terms anyway.

ceejayoz 5y ago
Texas has a specific law targeting BDS, HB 89. The clause is likely quite specific to this. https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/85R/billtext/html/HB00089I.htm https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/85R/billtext/html/HB00089I...
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  You can put anything in a contract. If you're really creative you might get a chuckle out of the judge. The realpolitik move here is for Hassouna to include the clause so the bureaucrat evaluating his submission can check the box without sticking their neck out and then do what he damn well pleases. The state isn't gonna take him to court for the same reason the states you cheer-lead for only ever use their gun laws to secure better plea deals and never actually prosecute them in court.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    > The state isn't gonna take him to court... It's quite clear that's not the case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws#Constitutional_challenges https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws#Constitutional_c...

maccolgan 5y ago

It's a standard funding rule so it seems, usual way to sneak in random provisions sidestepping usual democratic process a la minimum drinking age, Medicaid policies, etc.