3 ms·
Mind you, I'm not arguing for or against the boycott. But these laws would seem unconstitutional on the basis of the first amendment and precedent: (e.g. In NA
by sndman 5y ago
Mind you, I'm not arguing for or against the boycott.
But these laws would seem unconstitutional on the basis of the first amendment and precedent: (e.g. In NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. (1982).)
And the boycott movement is not about targeting individuals or classes of individuals. BDS encourages supporters to select targets based on their complicity in Israel's human rights violations, potential for cross-movement solidarity, media appeal, and likelihood of success.
In 1966 African Americans in Clairborne County, Mississippi, participated in a sustained boycott of white-owned businesses to put pressure on local government and business leaders to meet their 19 “Demands for Racial Justice.” The document, drafted by the local chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), laid out specific measures to advance the civil rights of African Americans, from desegregation of bus stations to asking that blacks be addressed as “Mr.” and “Mrs.” rather than derogatory terms such as “boy.”
Three years later, a group of white business owners sued the NAACP and its leaders, who had organized and enforced the boycott, for the economic damages they had suffered.
The Supreme Court ruled that the NAACP’s boycott was composed of elements protected by the First Amendment: speech, assembly, and petition. The Court also paid particular attention to the end goal of the boycotters.
In that case, Justice John Paul Stevens compared the NAACP boycott campaign with the railroad association’s public relations campaign in Noerr and concluded that the boycott was entitled to even greater protection.
- adolph 5y agoThank you. I likewise am not making an argument for or against any specific thing but instead ask out of curiosity as the constitution is a thing from which much complexity has evolved. I can see the similarity to Claiborne and the differences since in the case of Claiborne: * there was a specific petition (of which I'm not aware in the case of the Israel boycott, but may exist) * the boycott's target was a domestic entity as opposed to a foreign nation, which seems to go around traditional prohibitions against individuals conducting foreign policy
- sndman 5y agoIn the case of this BDS campaign, the actual boycott is not against the nation of Israel. It's mainly to boycott products of companies that are complicit in Israel's violations of Palestinian rights. The idea is that Roger Waters (yes, that Roger Waters) wants you to stop buying Sabre Hummus and Puma products.
- adolph 5y agoIf the below is representative, then it is quite a bit more than that. BOYCOTTS involve withdrawing support from Israel's apartheid regime, complicit Israeli sporting, cultural and academic institutions, and from all Israeli and international companies engaged in violations of Palestinian human rights. https://bdsmovement.net/what-is-bds https://bdsmovement.net/what-is-bds
- sndman 5y agoYou're correct. It is much more then I implied. My point was that for people outside Israel, it's difficult to boycott a governmental body. Also, it's important to mention that the academic boycott if Israeli institutions is an important component of the BDS movement. A general boycott is necessary because there is a moral imperative to end the occupation and only outside pressure, like the pressure that was exerted on the apartheid regime in South Africa, can perhaps achieve this. Why academia? Because Israeli academia is also a mouthpiece of the establishment and is used to enable Israel to present itself abroad as "the only democracy in the Middle East."
- adolph 5y ago>> In the case of this BDS campaign, the actual boycott is not against the nation of Israel. It's mainly to boycott products of companies that are complicit in Israel's violations of Palestinian rights. > It is much more then I implied. Is this an inverse form of motte and bailey argumentation? Are there any institutions associated with Israel that BDS would not cover? How can a disinterested person distinguish between a moral imperative based boycott and run of the mill anti-semitism (Baptist and Bootlegger problem)? Would a constitutional test for the Texas law fail if the petitioner's motivation were the latter or does it not make a difference? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleggers_and_Baptists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleggers_and_Baptists