4 ms·

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

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.

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.